Split (1)

train · 24.7k rows

dataset stringclasses 1 value	id stringlengths 1 5	messages listlengths 2 2
query-laysum	22140	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSpecific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.\nOur primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.\nFor 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.\nFor 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.\nSeven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.\nOf our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.\nOur findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.\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": "Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. We downgraded quality mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and that relatively few studies reported outcomes relevant to patients. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures." } ]
query-laysum	22141	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce occupational sedentary time, but it is unclear whether these interventions ameliorate musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to increase standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH UPDATE, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to January 2019. We also screened reference lists of primary studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), quasi RCTs, and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies of interventions to reduce or break up workplace sitting by encouraging standing or walking in the workplace among workers with musculoskeletal symptoms. The primary outcome was self-reported intensity or presence of musculoskeletal symptoms by body region and the impact of musculoskeletal symptoms such as pain-related disability. We considered work performance and productivity, sickness absenteeism, and adverse events such as venous disorders or perinatal complications as secondary outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for study eligibility. These review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request additional data when required. We used GRADE considerations to assess the quality of evidence provided by studies that contributed to the meta-analyses.\nMain results\nWe found ten studies including three RCTs, five cluster RCTs, and two CBA studies with a total of 955 participants, all from high-income countries. Interventions targeted changes to the physical work environment such as provision of sit-stand or treadmill workstations (four studies), an activity tracker (two studies) for use in individual approaches, and multi-component interventions (five studies). We did not find any studies that specifically targeted only the organisational level components. Two studies assessed pain-related disability.\nPhysical work environment\nThere was no significant difference in the intensity of low back symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to 0.10; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) nor in the intensity of upper back symptoms (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -.96 to 0.00; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) in the short term (less than six months) for interventions using sit-stand workstations compared to no intervention. No studies examined discomfort outcomes at medium (six to less than 12 months) or long term (12 months and more). No significant reduction in pain-related disability was noted when a sit-stand workstation was used compared to when no intervention was provided in the medium term (mean difference (MD) -0.4, 95% CI -2.70 to 1.90; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence).\nIndividual approach\nThere was no significant difference in the intensity or presence of low back symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.77; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.84; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.78; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), or elbow/wrist and hand symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions involving an activity tracker compared to an alternative intervention or no intervention in the short term. No studies provided outcomes at medium term, and only one study examined outcomes at long term.\nOrganisational level\nNo studies evaluated the effects of interventions solely targeted at the organisational level.\nMulti-component approach\nThere was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.80; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the short term. Only one RCT examined outcomes at medium term and found no significant difference in low back symptoms (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.95 to 1.15; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (MD -0.70, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.72; low-quality evidence), and leg symptoms (MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.49 to 0.89; low-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; two RCTs; low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.29; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the long term. There was a statistically significant reduction in pain-related disability following a multi-component intervention compared to no intervention in the medium term (MD -8.80, 95% CI -17.46 to -0.14; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently available limited evidence does not show that interventions to increase standing or walking in the workplace reduced musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers at short-, medium-, or long-term follow up. The quality of evidence is low or very low, largely due to study design and small sample sizes. Although the results of this review are not statistically significant, some interventions targeting the physical work environment are suggestive of an intervention effect. Therefore, in the future, larger cluster-RCTs recruiting participants with baseline musculoskeletal symptoms and long-term outcomes are needed to determine whether interventions to increase standing or walking can reduce musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers and can be sustained over time.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What trials did review authors find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found 10 studies conducted with a total of 955 employees with musculoskeletal complaints from high-income countries. Four studies evaluated changes to the physical work environment through provision of sit-stand or treadmill workstations, two studies evaluated individual approaches involving use of an activity tracker, and five studies used multi-component interventions and counselling interventions. However, no studies solely targeted interventions at the organisation level." } ]
query-laysum	22142	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients with newly diagnosed high-risk (HR) neuroblastoma (NBL) still have a poor outcome, despite multi-modality intensive therapy. This poor outcome necessitates the search for new therapies, such as treatment with 131I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine (131I-MIBG).\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and adverse effects of 131I-MIBG therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1945 to 25 April 2016) and Embase (Ovid) (1980 to 25 April 2016). In addition, we handsearched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. We also assessed the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology, Advances in Neuroblastoma Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology; all from 2010 up to and including 2015. We scanned the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register (www.isrctn.com) and the National Institutes of Health Register for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov) on 13 April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), non-randomised single-arm trials with historical controls and cohort studies examining the efficacy of 131I-MIBG therapy in 10 or more patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.\nMain results\nWe identified two eligible cohort studies including 60 children with newly diagnosed HR NBL. All studies had methodological limitations, with regard to both internal (risk of bias) and external validity. As the studies were not comparable with regard to prognostic factors and treatment (and often used different outcome definitions), pooling of results was not possible. In one study, the objective response rate (ORR) was 73% after surgery; the median overall survival was 15 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 to 23); five-year overall survival was 14.6%; median event-free survival was 10 months (95% CI 7 to 13); and five-year event-free survival was 12.2%. In the other study, the ORR was 56% after myeloablative therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation; 10-year overall survival was 6.25%; and event-free survival was not reported. With regard to short-term adverse effects, one study showed a prevalence of 2% (95% CI 0% to 13%; best-case scenario) for death due to myelosuppression. After the first cycle of 131I-MIBG therapy in one study, platelet toxicity occurred in 38% (95% CI 18% to 61%), neutrophil toxicity in 50% (95% CI 28% to 72%) and haemoglobin toxicity in 69% (95% CI 44% to 86%); after the second cycle this was 60% (95% CI 36% to 80%) for platelets and neutrophils and 53% (95% CI 30% to 75%) for haemoglobin. In one study, the prevalence of hepatic toxicity during or within four weeks after last the MIBG treatment was 0% (95% CI 0% to 9%; best-case scenario). Neither study reported cardiovascular toxicity and sialoadenitis. One study assessed long-term adverse events in some of the children: there was elevated plasma thyroid-stimulating hormone in 45% (95% CI 27% to 65%) of children; in all children, free T4 was within the age-related normal range (0%, 95% CI 0% to 15%). There were no secondary malignancies observed (0%, 95% CI 0% to 9%), but only five children survived more than four years.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified no RCTs or CCTs comparing the effectiveness of treatment including 131I-MIBG therapy versus treatment not including 131I-MIBG therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL. We found two small observational studies including chilren. They had high risk of bias, and not all relevant outcome results were available. Based on the currently available evidence, we cannot make recommendations for the use of 131I-MIBG therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL in clinical practice. More high-quality research is needed.\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 studies were not comparable with regard to the children, the ways they were treated and the ways the different outcomes were defined and so it was impossible to combine the results in an analysis. Not all relevant outcome results were available.\nThe percentages of children whose cancer reduced or disappeared after treatment (response rate) were 56% and 73% in the two studies, but survival was still poor: overall survival (length of time that the child remained alive) was about 15 months, event-free survival (time during which there were no objective signs of tumor recurrence) was about 10 months. Overall survival five years after treatment was 14.6%, and after 10 years was 12.2%.\nWith regard to short-term side effects, there were some low blood cell counts. There was no liver toxicity. The studies did not report on heart problems and infections of the salivary glands. One study assessed long-term side effects in some of the children: there was some evidence of thyroid (a gland in the neck) problems, which was brief in three children, but remained high in seven children, of whom five were prescribed medicine. There were no secondary cancers (where a different type of cancer has returned following the original cancer).\nBased on the currently available evidence, we cannot make recommendations for the use of 131I-MIBG therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL in clinical practice. More high-quality research is needed before definite conclusions can be made." } ]
query-laysum	22143	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFalls are one of the most common complications after stroke, with a reported incidence ranging between 7% in the first week and 73% in the first year post stroke. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at preventing falls in people after stroke. Our primary objective was to determine the effect of interventions on the rate of falls (number of falls per person-year) and the number of fallers. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of interventions aimed at preventing falls on 1) the number of fall-related fractures; 2) the number of fall-related hospital admissions; 3) near-fall events; 4) economic evaluation; 5) quality of life; and 6) adverse effects of the interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group (September 2018) and the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group (October 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1950 to September 2018); Embase (1980 to September 2018); CINAHL (1982 to September 2018); PsycINFO (1806 to August 2018); AMED (1985 to December 2017); and PEDro (September 2018). We also searched trials registers and checked reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of interventions where the primary or secondary aim was to prevent falls in people after stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (SD and WS) independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements through discussion, and contacted study authors for additional information where required. We used a rate ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) to compare the rate of falls (e.g. falls per person-year) between intervention and control groups. For risk of falling we used a risk ratio and 95% CI based on the number of people falling (fallers) in each group. We pooled results where appropriate and applied GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies (of which six have been published since the first version of this review in 2013), with a total of 1358 participants. We found studies that investigated exercises, predischarge home visits for hospitalised patients, the provision of single lens distance vision glasses instead of multifocal glasses, a servo-assistive rollator and non-invasive brain stimulation for preventing falls.\nExercise compared to control for preventing falls in people after stroke\nThe pooled result of eight studies showed that exercise may reduce the rate of falls but we are uncertain about this result (rate ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94, 765 participants, low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis for single exercise interventions, omitting studies using multiple/multifactorial interventions, also found that exercise may reduce the rate of falls (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.87, 626 participants). Sensitivity analysis for the effect in the chronic phase post stroke resulted in little or no difference in rate of falls (rate ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.12, 205 participants). A sensitivity analysis including only studies with low risk of bias found little or no difference in rate of falls (rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.20, 462 participants). Methodological limitations mean that we have very low confidence in the results of these sensitivity analyses.\nFor the outcome of number of fallers, we are very uncertain of the effect of exercises compared to the control condition, based on the pooled result of 10 studies (risk ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19, 969 participants, very low quality evidence). The same sensitivity analyses as described above gives us very low certainty that there are little or no differences in number of fallers (single interventions: risk ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.28, 796 participants; chronic phase post stroke: risk ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, 375 participants; low risk of bias studies: risk ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, 462 participants).\nOther interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke\nWe are very uncertain whether interventions other than exercise reduce the rate of falls or number of fallers. We identified very low certainty evidence when investigating the effect of predischarge home visits (rate ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.69; risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.09; 85 participants), provision of single lens distance glasses to regular wearers of multifocal glasses (rate ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.25; risk ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.18; 46 participants) and a servo-assistive rollator (rate ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.21; risk ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.22; 42 participants).\nFinally, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was used in one study to examine the effect on falls post stroke. We have low certainty that active tDCS may reduce the number of fallers compared to sham tDCS (risk ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.63; 60 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present there exists very little evidence about interventions other than exercises to reduce falling post stroke. Low to very low quality evidence exists that this population benefits from exercises to prevent falls, but not to reduce number of fallers.\nFall research does not in general or consistently follow methodological gold standards, especially with regard to fall definition and time post stroke. More well-reported, adequately-powered research should further establish the value of exercises in reducing falling, in particular per phase, post stroke.\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": "3 September 2018" } ]
query-laysum	22144	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLower limb muscle cramps are common and painful. They can limit exercise participation, and reduce quality of sleep, and quality of life. Many interventions are available for lower limb cramps; some are controversial or could cause harm, and often, people experience no benefit from the interventions used. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-drug, non-invasive therapies for lower limb muscle cramps.\nSearch methods\nIn August 2018 and May 2020, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of included studies. We imposed no restrictions by language or publication date.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-drug, non-invasive interventions tested over at least four weeks, for lower limb muscle cramps in any group of people, except pregnant women. The primary outcome was cramp frequency. Secondary outcomes were cramp pain severity, cramp duration, health-related quality of life, quality of sleep, participation in activities of daily living, proportion of participants reporting lower limb muscle cramps, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and cross-checked data extraction and analyses according to standard Cochrane procedures.\nMain results\nWe included three trials, with 201 participants, all 50 years of age and older; none had neurological disease. All trials evaluated a form of stretching for lower limb muscle cramps.\nA combination of daily calf and hamstring stretching for six weeks may reduce the severity of night-time lower limb muscle cramps (measured on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) where 0 = no pain and 10 cm = worst pain imaginable) in people aged 55 years and older, compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) -1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.74 to -0.86; 1 RCT, 80 participants; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence was very low for cramp frequency (change in number of cramps per night from week zero to week six) comparing the stretching group and the no intervention group (MD −1.2, 95% CI −1.8 to −0.6; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nCalf stretching alone for 12 weeks may make little to no difference to the frequency of night-time lower limb muscle cramps in people aged 60 years and older (stretching group median number of cramps in the last four weeks (Md) 4, interquartile range (IQR) 8; N = 48; sham stretching group Md 3, IQR 7.63; N = 46) (U = 973.5, z = -0.995, P = 0.32, r = 0.10; 1 RCT, 94 participants; low-certainty evidence). This trial did not report cramp severity.\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effects of a combination of daily calf, quadriceps, and hamstring stretching on the frequency and severity of leg cramps in 50- to 60-year-old women with metabolic syndrome (N = 24). It was not possible to fully analyse the frequency data and the scale used to measure cramp severity is not validated.\nNo study reported health-related quality of life, quality of sleep, or participation in activities of daily living. No participant in these three studies reported adverse events. The evidence for adverse events was of moderate certainty as the studies were too small to detect uncommon events.\nIn two of the three studies, outcomes were at risk of recall bias, and tools used to measure outcomes were not validated. Due to limitations in study designs that led to risks of bias, and imprecise findings with wide CIs, we cannot be certain that findings of future studies will be similar to those presented in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA combination of daily calf and hamstring stretching for six weeks may reduce the severity of night-time lower limb muscle cramps in people aged 55 years and older, but the effect on cramp frequency is uncertain. Calf stretching alone compared to sham stretching for 12 weeks may make little or no difference to the frequency of night-time lower limb muscle cramps in people aged 60 years and older. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of a combination of daily calf, quadriceps, and hamstring stretching on the frequency and severity of leg cramps in 50- to 60-year-old women with metabolic syndrome. Overall, use of unvalidated outcome measures and inconsistent diagnostic criteria make it difficult to compare the studies and apply findings to clinical practice.\nGiven the prevalence and impact of lower limb muscle cramps, there is a pressing need to carefully evaluate many of the commonly recommended and emerging non-drug therapies in well-designed RCTs across all types of lower limb muscle cramps. A specific cramp outcome tool should be developed and validated for use in future research.\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": "There is very little evidence from randomised trials to help people make decisions about non-drug treatments for leg or foot cramps. We cannot be certain if any non-drug therapy is particularly helpful, because there are not enough studies on which to base decisions, and cramps have generally not been well measured. No study tested non-drug therapies in people under age 50 years, or with neurological disease. The current evidence provides some support that combining daily calf and hamstring stretching may reduce the severity of night-time lower limb muscle cramps in people 55 years of age and older, but the effect on the frequency of cramps is not clear; the certainty of the evidence is very low." } ]
query-laysum	22145	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering disease. Oral steroids are the standard treatment. We have updated this review, which was first published in 2002, because several new treatments have since been tried.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of treatments for bullous pemphigoid.\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches of the following databases to November 2021: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched five trial databases to January 2022, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nRCTs of treatments for immunofluorescence-confirmed bullous pemphigoid.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors, working independently, evaluated the studies against the review's inclusion criteria and extracted data from included studies. Using GRADE methodology, we assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in each comparison. Our primary outcomes were healing of skin lesions and mortality.\nMain results\nWe identified 14 RCTs (1442 participants). The main treatment modalities assessed were oral steroids, topical steroids, and the oral anti-inflammatory antibiotic doxycycline. Most studies reported mortality but adverse events and quality of life were not well reported. We decided to look at the primary outcomes 'disease control' and 'mortality'.\nAlmost all studies investigated different comparisons; two studies were placebo-controlled. The results are therefore based on a single study for each comparison except azathioprine. Most studies involved only small numbers of participants. We assessed the risk of bias for all key outcomes as having 'some concerns' or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information.\nClobetasol propionate cream versus oral prednisone\nCompared to oral prednisone, clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body probably increases skin healing at day 21 (risk ratio (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.13; 1 study, 341 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Skin healing at 21 days was seen in 99.8% of participants assigned to clobetasol and 92.4% of participants assigned to prednisone. Clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body compared to oral prednisone may reduce mortality at one year (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; 1 study, 341 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death occurred in 26.5% (45/170) of participants assigned to clobetasol and 36.3% (62/171) of participants assigned to oral prednisone. This study did not measure quality of life. Clobetasol propionate cream may reduce risk of severe complications by day 21 compared with oral prednisone (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86; 1 study, 341 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nMild clobetasol propionate cream regimen (10 to 30 g/day) versus standard clobetasol propionate cream regimen (40 g/day)\nA mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen probably does not change skin healing at day 21 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 1 study, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Both groups showed complete healing of lesions at day 21 in 98% participants. A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen may not change mortality at one year (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32; 1 study, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence), which occurred in 118/312 (37.9%) participants. This study did not measure quality of life. A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen may not change adverse events at one year (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 309 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nDoxycycline versus prednisolone\nCompared to prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg/day), doxycycline (200 mg/day) induces less skin healing at six weeks (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92; 1 study, 213 participants; high-certainty evidence). Complete skin healing was reported in 73.8% of participants assigned to doxycycline and 91.1% assigned to prednisolone. Doxycycline compared to prednisolone probably decreases mortality at one year (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 14; 1 study, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mortality occurred in 2.4% (3/132) of participants with doxycycline and 9.7% (11/121) with prednisolone. Compared to prednisolone, doxycycline improved quality of life at one year (mean difference 1.8 points lower, which is more favourable on the Dermatology Life Quality Index, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.58 lower; 1 study, 234 participants; high-certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to prednisolone probably reduces severe or life-threatening treatment-related adverse events at one year (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99; 1 study, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nPrednisone plus azathioprine versus prednisone\nIt is unclear whether azathioprine plus prednisone compared to prednisone alone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from two trials (98 participants). These studies did not measure quality of life. Adverse events were reported in a total of 20/48 (42%) participants assigned to azathioprine plus prednisone and 15/44 (34%) participants assigned to prednisone.\nNicotinamide plus tetracycline versus prednisone\nIt is unclear whether nicotinamide plus tetracycline compared to prednisone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from one trial (18 participants). This study did not measure quality of life. Fewer adverse events were reported in the nicotinamide group.\nMethylprednisolone plus azathioprine versus methylprednisolone plus dapsone\nIt is unclear whether azathioprine plus methylprednisolone compared to dapsone plus methylprednisolone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from one trial (54 participants). This study did not measure quality of life. A total of 18 adverse events were reported in the azathioprine group and 13 in the dapsone group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nClobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body is probably similarly effective as, and may cause less mortality than, oral prednisone for treating bullous pemphigoid. Lower-dose clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body is probably similarly effective as standard-dose clobetasol propionate cream and has similar mortality. Doxycycline is less effective but causes less mortality than prednisolone for treating bullous pemphigoid. Other treatments need further investigation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that looked at treatments for bullous pemphigoid. We compared and summarised their results, and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes." } ]
query-laysum	22146	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging disease classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support the WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high disease transmission.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and updated the search in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 23 June 2020.\nSelection criteria\nCohort studies, case-control studies, time series, interrupted time series, case series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened abstracts and titles in duplicate. Two review authors then independently screened all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We used three different tools to assess risk of bias, depending on the study design: ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies of interventions, a tool provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-randomised, non-controlled studies, and recommendations from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for modelling studies. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and costs.\nMain results\nWe included 51 studies; 4 observational studies and 28 modelling studies on COVID-19, one observational and one modelling study on MERS, three observational and 11 modelling studies on SARS, and three modelling studies on SARS and other infectious diseases. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and undertook a narrative synthesis. We judged risk of bias to be moderate for 2/3 non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and serious for 1/3 NRSI. We rated risk of bias moderate for 4/5 non-controlled cohort studies, and serious for 1/5. We rated modelling studies as having no concerns for 13 studies, moderate concerns for 17 studies and major concerns for 13 studies.\nQuarantine for individuals who were in contact with a confirmed/suspected COVID-19 case in comparison to no quarantine\nModelling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases may have averted 44% to 96% of incident cases and 31% to 76% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 6 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS, low-certainty evidence). Studies also indicated that there may be a reduction in the basic reproduction number ranging from 37% to 88% due to the implementation of quarantine (5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings may be (2 modelling studies on SARS).\nQuarantine in combination with other measures to contain COVID-19 in comparison to other measures without quarantine or no measures\nWhen the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, such as school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated that there may be a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than measures without quarantine or no interventions (incident cases: 9 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19.\nQuarantine for individuals travelling from a country with a declared COVID-19 outbreak compared to no quarantine\nVery low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths may be small for SARS, but might be larger for COVID-19 (2 observational studies on COVID-19 and 2 observational studies on SARS).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence is limited because most studies on COVID-19 are mathematical modelling studies that make different assumptions on important model parameters. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, although there is uncertainty over the magnitude of the effect. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak and the impact of the measures implemented.\nThis review was originally commissioned by the WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems. The update was self-initiated by the review authors.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Reliability of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Two SARS modelling studies assessed costs. They found that the costs may be lower when quarantine measures start earlier.Reliability of the evidenceWe are uncertain about the evidence we found for several reasons. The observational studies on COVID-19 did not include a comparison group without quarantine. The COVID-19 studies based their models on limited data and made different assumptions about the virus (e.g. how quickly it would spread). The other studies investigated SARS and MERS so they only provide indirect evidence.ConclusionDespite limited evidence, all the studies found quarantine to be important in reducing the number of people infected and the number of deaths. Results suggest that quarantine was most effective, and cost less, when it started earlier. Combining quarantine with other prevention and control measures may have a greater effect than quarantine alone.This review includes evidence published up to 23 June 2020." } ]
query-laysum	22147	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTrabeculectomy is performed as a treatment for glaucoma to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). The surgical procedure involves creating a channel through the wall of the eye. However scarring during wound healing can block this channel which will lead to the operation failing. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have been proposed to slow down healing response and scar formation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapies administered by subconjunctival injection for the outcome of trabeculectomy at 12 months follow-up and to examine the balance of benefit and harms when compared to any other anti-scarring agents or no additional anti-scarring agents.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2015, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 12 November 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-VEGF therapies administered by subconjunctival injection compared to any other anti-scarring agents or no additional anti-scarring agents (no treatment or placebo) in trabeculectomy surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was successful trabeculectomy at 12 months after surgery which was defined as achieving a target IOP (usually no more than 21 mm Hg) without any additional intervention. Other outcomes included: qualified success (achieving target IOP with or without additional intervention), mean IOP and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included five RCTs (175 participants, 177 eyes) that met the inclusion criteria in this review.\nOne trial conducted in Iran (37 participants, 37 eyes) compared anti-VEGF (bevacizumab 0.2 mg) versus control (sham injection) in people with refractory glaucoma. We judged this study to be at low risk of bias.The primary outcome of this review was not reported; mean IOP at three months was 15.1 mm Hg (standard deviation 1.0) in both anti-VEGF and control groups.\nFour trials compared anti-VEGF to mitomycin C (MMC) (138 particpants, 140 eyes). These studies were conducted in India, Iran, Turkey and the USA. The anti-VEGF agent used in these four trials was bevacizumab 2.5 mg (two trials), bevacizumab 1.25 mg three times and ranibizumab 0.5 mg. Two trials were at high risk of bias in two domains and one trial was at high risk of bias in four domains.\nOnly one of these trials reported the primary outcome of this review (42 participants, 42 eyes). Low quality evidence from this trial showed that people receiving bevacizumab 2.5 mg during primary trabeculectomy were less likely to achieve complete success at 12 months compared to people receiving MMC but the confidence interval (CI) was wide and compatible with increased chance of complete success for anti-VEGF (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.08), Assuming that approximately 81% of people receiving MMC achieve complete success, the anticipated success using anti-VEGF agents would be between 37.2% and 87.4%. The same trial suggested no evidence for any difference in qualified success between bevacizumab and MMC (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14, moderate quality evidence). Two trials of primary trabeculectomy provided data on mean IOP at 12 months; one trial of bevacizumab 2.5 mg and one trial of ranibizumab 0.5 mg. Mean IOP was 1.86 mm Hg higher (95% CI 0.15 to 3.57) in the anti-VEGF groups compared to the MMC groups (66 people, low quality evidence). Data were reported on wound leak, hypotony, shallow anterior chamber and endophthalmitis, but these events occurred rarely and currently there are not enough data available to detect any differences, if any, between the two treatments.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is currently of low quality which is insufficient to refute or support anti-VEGF subconjunctival injection for control of wound healing in glaucoma surgery. The effect on IOP control of anti-VEGF agents in glaucoma patients undergoing trabeculectomy is still uncertain, compared to MMC.\nFurther RCTs of anti-VEGF subconjunctival injection in glaucoma surgery are required, particularly compared to sham treatment with at least 12 months follow-up.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There is currently evidence of low quality which is insufficient to refute or support anti-VEGF subconjunctival injection in glaucoma surgery. Several trials are ongoing and will be included in updates of the review." } ]
query-laysum	22148	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVisual problems in older people are common and frequently under-reported. The effects of poor vision in older people are wide reaching and include falls, confusion and reduced quality of life. Much of the visual impairment in older ages can be treated (e.g. cataract surgery, correction of refractive error). Vision screening may therefore reduce the number of older people living with sight loss.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess the effects on vision of community vision screening of older people for visual impairment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 23 November 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vision screening alone or as part of a multi-component screening package as compared to no vision screening or standard care, on the vision of people aged 65 years or over in a community setting. We included trials that used self-reported visual problems or visual acuity testing as the screening tool.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nVisual outcome data were available for 10,608 people in 10 trials. Four trials took place in the UK, two in Australia, two in the United States and two in the Netherlands. Length of follow-up ranged from one to five years. Three of these studies were cluster-randomised trials whereby general practitioners or family physicians were randomly allocated to undertake vision screening or no vision screening. All studies were funded by government agencies. Overall we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias and only downgraded the certainty of the evidence (GRADE) for imprecision.\nSeven trials compared vision screening as part of a multi-component screening versus no screening. Six of these studies used self-reported vision as both screening tool and outcome measure, but did not directly measure vision. One study used a combination of self-reported vision and visual acuity measurement: participants reporting vision problems at screening were treated by the attending doctor, referred to an eye care specialist or given information about resources that were available to assist with poor vision. There was a similar risk of \"not seeing well\" at follow-up in people screened compared with people not screened in meta-analysis of six studies (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.14, 4522 participants high-certainty evidence). One trial reported \"improvement in vision\" and this occurred slightly less frequently in the screened group (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.40, 230 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).\nTwo trials compared vision screening (visual acuity testing) alone with no vision screening. In one study, distance visual acuity was similar in the two groups at follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.05, 532 participants, high-certainty evidence). There was also little difference in near acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.07, 532 participants, high-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of any important difference in quality of life (MD −0.06 National Eye Institute 25-item visual function questionnaire (VFQ-25) score adjusted for baseline VFQ-25 score, 95% CI −2.3 to 1.1, 532 participants, high-certainty evidence). The other study could not be included in the data analysis as the number of participants in each of the arms at follow-up could not be determined. However the authors stated that there was no significant difference in mean visual acuity in participants who had visual acuity assessed at baseline (39 letters) as compared to those who did not have their visual acuity assessed (35 letters, P = 0.25, 121 participants).\nOne trial compared a detailed health assessment including measurement of visual acuity (intervention) with a brief health assessment including one question about vision (standard care). People given the detailed health assessment had a similar risk of visual impairment (visual acuity worse than 6/18 in either eye) at follow-up compared with people given the brief assessment (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.36, 1807 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The mean composite score of the VFQ-25 was 86.0 in the group that underwent visual acuity screening compared with 85.6 in the standard care group, a difference of 0.40 (95% CI −1.70 to 2.50, 1807 participants, high-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence from RCTs undertaken to date does not support vision screening for older people living independently in a community setting, whether in isolation or as part of a multi-component screening package. This is true for screening programmes involving questions about visual problems, or direct measurements of visual acuity.\nThe most likely reason for this negative review is that the populations within the trials often did not take up the offered intervention as a result of the vision screening and large proportions of those who did not have vision screening appeared to seek their own intervention. Also, trials that use questions about vision have a lower sensitivity and specificity than formal visual acuity testing. Given the importance of visual impairment among older people, further research into strategies to improve vision of older people is needed. The effectiveness of an optimised primary care-based screening intervention that overcomes possible factors contributing to the observed lack of benefit in trials to date warrants assessment; trials should consider including more dependent participants, rather than those living independently in the community.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Cochrane Review authors searched for studies that had been published up to 23 November 2017." } ]
query-laysum	22149	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInsufficient physical activity is one of four primary risk factors for non-communicable diseases such as stroke, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and chronic lung disease. As few as one in five children aged 5 to 17 years have the physical activity recommended for health benefits. The outside-school hours period contributes around 30% of children's daily physical activity and presents a key opportunity for children to increase their physical activity. Testing the effects of interventions in outside-school hours childcare settings is required to assess the potential to increase physical activity and reduce disease burden.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and associated adverse events of interventions designed to increase physical activity in children aged 4 to 12 years in outside-school hours childcare settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC and SportsDISCUS to identify eligible trials on 18 August 2020. We searched two databases, three trial registries, reference lists of included trials and handsearched two physical activity journals in August 2020. We contacted first and senior authors on articles identified for inclusion for ongoing or unpublished potentially relevant trials in August 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of any intervention primarily aimed at increasing physical activity in children aged 4 to 12 years in outside-school hours childcare settings compared to usual care. To be eligible, the interventions must have been delivered in the context of an existing outside-school hours childcare setting (i.e. childcare that was available consistently throughout the school week/year), and not set up in the after-school period for the purpose of research. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified papers with discrepancies resolved via a consensus discussion. A third review author was not required to resolve disagreements.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials with discrepancies resolved via a consensus discussion; a third review author was not required to resolve disagreements. For continuous measures of physical activity, we reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in random-effects models using the generic inverse variance method for each outcome. For continuous measures, when studies used different scales to measure the same outcome, we used standardised mean differences (SMDs). We conducted assessments of risk of bias of all outcomes and evaluated the certainty of evidence (GRADE approach) using standard Cochrane procedures.\nMain results\nWe included nine trials with 4458 participants. Five trials examined the effectiveness of staff-based interventions to change practice in the outside-school hours childcare setting (e.g. change in programming, activities offered by staff, staff facilitation/training). Two trials examined the effectiveness of staff- and parent-based interventions (e.g. parent newsletters/telephone calls/messages or parent tool-kits in addition to staff-based interventions), one trial assessed staff- and child-based intervention (e.g. children had home activities to emphasise physical activity education learnt during outside-school hours childcare sessions in addition to staff-based interventions) and one trial assessed child-only based intervention (i.e. only children were targeted).\nWe judged two trials as free from high risk of bias across all domains. Of those studies at high risk of bias, it was across domains of randomisation process, missing outcome data and measurement of the outcome.\nThere was low-certainty evidence that physical activity interventions may have little to no effect on total daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity compared to no intervention (MD 1.7 minutes, 95% CI –0.42 to 3.82; P = 0.12; 6 trials; 3042 children). We were unable to pool data on proportion of the OSHC session spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in a meta-analysis. Both trials showed an increase in proportion of session spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (moderate-certainty evidence) from 4% to 7.3% of session time; however, only one trial was statistically significant. There was low-certainty evidence that physical activity interventions may lead to little to no reduction in body mass index (BMI) as a measure of cardiovascular health, compared to no intervention (SMD –0.17, 95% CI –0.44 to 0.10; P = 0.22; 4 trials, 1684 children). Physical activity interventions that were delivered online were more cost-effective than in person. Combined results suggest that staff-and-parent and staff-and-child-based interventions may lead to a small increase in overall daily physical activity and a small reduction or no difference in BMI. Process evaluation was assessed differently by four of the included studies, with two studies reporting improvements in physical activity practices, one reporting high programme satisfaction and one high programme fidelity. The certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was low to moderate. Finally, there was very low-certainty evidence that physical activity interventions in outside-school hours childcare settings may increase cardiovascular fitness.\nNo trials reported on quality of life or adverse outcomes. Trials reported funding from local government health grants or charitable funds; no trials reported industry funding.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough the review included nine trials, the evidence for how to increase children's physical activity in outside-school hours care settings remains limited, both in terms of certainty of evidence and magnitude of the effect. Of the types of interventions identified, when assessed using GRADE there was low-certainty evidence that multi-component interventions, with a specific physical activity goal may have a small increase in daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and a slight reduction in BMI. There was very low-certainty evidence that interventions increase cardiovascular fitness. By contrast there was moderate-certainty evidence that interventions were effective for increasing proportion of time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and online training is cost-effective.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched electronic databases and relevant journals to find studies. We included any randomised study (in which people have the same chance of being given the intervention or not) that looked at programmes to increase physical activity in outside-school hours care settings. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes." } ]
query-laysum	22150	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFluid therapy is one of the main interventions provided for critically ill patients, although there is no general consensus regarding the type of solution. Among crystalloid solutions, 0.9% saline is the most commonly administered. Buffered solutions may offer some theoretical advantages (less metabolic acidosis, less electrolyte disturbance), but the clinical relevance of these remains unknown.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of buffered solutions versus 0.9% saline for resuscitation in critically ill adults and children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to July 2018: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and four trials registers. We checked references, conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We imposed no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with parallel or cross-over design examining buffered solutions versus intravenous 0.9% saline in a critical care setting (resuscitation or maintenance). We included studies on participants with critical illness (including trauma and burns) or undergoing emergency surgery during critical illness who required intravenous fluid therapy. We included studies of adults and children. We included studies with more than two arms if they fulfilled all of our inclusion criteria. We excluded studies performed in persons undergoing elective surgery and studies with multiple interventions in the same arm.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. We assessed our intervention effects using random-effects models, but when one or two trials contributed to 75% of randomized participants, we used fixed-effect models. We reported outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nWe included 21 RCTs (20,213 participants) and identified three ongoing studies. Three RCTs contributed 19,054 participants (94.2%). Four RCTs (402 participants) were conducted among children with severe dehydration and dengue shock syndrome. Fourteen trials reported results on mortality, and nine reported on acute renal injury. Sixteen included trials were conducted in adults, four in the paediatric population, and one trial limited neither minimum or maximum age as an inclusion criterion. Eight studies involving 19,218 participants were rated as high methodological quality (trials with overall low risk of bias according to the domains: allocation concealment, blinding of participants/assessors, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting), and in the remaining trials, some form of bias was introduced or could not be ruled out.\nWe found no evidence of an effect of buffered solutions on in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01; 19,664 participants; 14 studies; high-certainty evidence). Based on a mortality rate of 119 per 1000, buffered solutions could reduce mortality by 21 per 1000 or could increase mortality by 1 per 1000. Similarly, we found no evidence of an effect of buffered solutions on acute renal injury (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00; 18,701 participants; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence). Based on a rate of 121 per 1000, buffered solutions could reduce the rate of acute renal injury by 19 per 1000, or result in no difference in the rate of acute renal injury. Buffered solutions did not show an effect on organ system dysfunction (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.61; 266 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Evidence on the effects of buffered solutions on electrolyte disturbances varied: potassium (mean difference (MD) 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.27; 158 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence); chloride (MD -3.02, 95% CI -5.24 to -0.80; 351 participants; 7 studies; very low-certainty evidence); pH (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06; 200 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence); and bicarbonate (MD 2.26, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.27; 344 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no effect of buffered solutions on preventing in-hospital mortality compared to 0.9% saline solutions in critically ill patients. The certainty of evidence for this finding was high, indicating that further research would detect little or no difference in mortality. The effects of buffered solutions and 0.9% saline solutions on preventing acute kidney injury were similar in this setting. The certainty of evidence for this finding was low, and further research could change this conclusion. Patients treated with buffered solutions showed lower chloride levels, higher levels of bicarbonate, and higher pH. The certainty of evidence for these findings was very low. Future research should further examine patient-centred outcomes such as quality of life. The three ongoing studies once published and assessed may alter the conclusions of the review.\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": "Key resultsBuffered solutions did not seem to reduce hospital deaths or worsening of renal (kidney) function in critically ill adults and children when compared to 0.9% saline.\nThe review shows that when critically ill patients received buffered solutions compared to 0.9% saline solutions:\n1. buffered solutions made little or no difference to overall mortality (19,664 participants; 14 studies; high-certainty evidence);\n2. buffered solutions probably may make little or no difference in reducing the number of patients with worsening kidney function (18,701 participants; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence); and\n3. we are uncertain whether buffered solutions reduce impairment of other organs (e.g., lung, liver, or brain function), electrolyte disturbances (increasing or decreasing chloride or sodium or other salts), and the need to receive blood transfusions because evidence certainty has been assessed as very low.\n\nNone of the studies looked at blood loss, clotting disturbances (concerning risk of bleeding or clots), and quality of life.\nResults varied in terms of the time points at which they were reported, the unit of measurement used, and the measures reported. The total amount of fluid given as fluid therapy was not recorded. Only four studies involved children. These children were less sick than participants included in the adult trials, and kidney damage was not reported. The three ongoing studies once published and assessed may alter the conclusions of this review." } ]
query-laysum	22151	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAnimal studies and trials in older children and adults suggest that a 'one dose per day' regimen of gentamicin is superior to a 'multiple doses per day' regimen.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and safety of one dose per day compared to multiple doses per day of gentamicin in suspected or proven sepsis in neonates.\nSearch methods\nEligible studies were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2016), MEDLINE (1966 to 8 April 2016), Embase (1980 to 8 April 2016), and CINAHL (December 1982 to 8 April 2016).\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing one dose per day ('once a day') compared to multiple doses per day ('multiple doses a day') of gentamicin to newborn infants.\nData collection and analysis\nData collection and analysis was performed according to the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.\nMain results\nEleven RCTs were included (N = 574) and 28 excluded. All except one study enrolled infants of more than 32 weeks' gestation. Limited information suggested that infants in both 'once a day' as well as 'multiple doses a day' regimens showed adequate clearance of sepsis (typical RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.19; 3 trials; N = 37). 'Once a day' gentamicin regimen was associated with fewer failures to attain peak level of at least 5 µg/ml (typical RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47; typical RD −0.13, 95% CI −0.19 to −0.08; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 8; 9 trials; N = 422); and fewer failures to achieve trough levels of 2 µg/ml or less (typical RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55; typical RD −0.22, 95% CI −0.29 to −0.15; NNTB = 4; 11 trials; N = 503). 'Once a day' gentamicin achieved higher peak levels (MD 2.58, 95% CI 2.26 to 2.89; 10 trials; N = 440) and lower trough levels (MD −0.57, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.44; 10 trials; N = 440) than 'multiple doses a day' regimen. There was no significant difference in ototoxicity between two groups (typical RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.18 to 16.25; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.05; 5 trials; N = 214). Nephrotoxicity was not noted with either of the treatment regimens. Overall, the quality of evidence was considered to be moderate on GRADE analysis, given the small sample size and unclear/high risk of bias in some of the domains in a few of the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence from the currently available RCTs to conclude whether a 'once a day' or a 'multiple doses a day' regimen of gentamicin is superior in treating proven neonatal sepsis. However, data suggest that pharmacokinetic properties of a 'once a day' gentamicin regimen are superior to a 'multiple doses a day' regimen in that it achieves higher peak levels while avoiding toxic trough levels. There was no change in nephrotoxicity or auditory toxicity. Based on the assessment of pharmacokinetics, a 'once a day regimen' may be superior in treating sepsis in neonates of more than 32 weeks' gestation.\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": "Safer and potentially more effective levels of the drug were maintained using a 'one dose per day' treatment schedule. No differences in the risk of adverse effects on the kidney function or hearing were noted between two regimens." } ]
query-laysum	22152	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEarly diagnosis of leptospirosis may contribute to the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy and early outbreak recognition. Nucleic acid and antigen detection tests have the potential for early diagnosis of leptospirosis. With this systematic review, we assessed the sensitivity and specificity of nucleic acid and antigen detection tests.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic test accuracy of nucleic acid and antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of human symptomatic leptospirosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and regional databases from inception to 6 July 2018. We did not apply restrictions to language or time of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included diagnostic cross-sectional studies and case-control studies of tests that made use of nucleic acid and antigen detection methods in people suspected of systemic leptospirosis. As reference standards, we considered the microscopic agglutination test alone (which detects antibodies against leptospirosis) or in a composite reference standard with culturing or other serological tests. Studies were excluded when the controls were healthy individuals or when there were insufficient data to calculate sensitivity and specificity.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently extracted data from each study. We used the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) to assess risk of bias. We calculated study-specific values for sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled the results in a meta-analysis when appropriate. We used the bivariate model for index tests with one positivity threshold, and we used the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model for index tests with multiple positivity thresholds. As possible sources of heterogeneity, we explored: timing of index test, disease prevalence, blood sample type, primers or target genes, and the real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) visualisation method. These were added as covariates to the meta-regression models.\nMain results\nWe included 41 studies evaluating nine index tests (conventional PCR (in short: PCR), real-time PCR, nested PCR, PCR performed twice, loop-mediated isothermal amplification, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), dot-ELISA, immunochromatography-based lateral flow assay, and dipstick assay) with 5981 participants (1834 with and 4147 without leptospirosis). Methodological quality criteria were often not reported, and the risk of bias of the reference standard was generally considered high. The applicability of findings was limited by the frequent use of frozen samples. We conducted meta-analyses for the PCR and the real-time PCR on blood products.\nThe pooled sensitivity of the PCR was 70% (95% CI 37% to 90%) and the pooled specificity was 95% (95% CI 75% to 99%). When studies with a high risk of bias in the reference standard domain were excluded, the pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI 44% to 98%) and the pooled specificity was 97% (95% CI 60% to 100%). For the real-time PCR, we estimated a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. To illustrate, a point on the curve with 85% specificity had a sensitivity of 49% (95% CI 30% to 68%). Likewise, at 90% specificity, sensitivity was 40% (95% CI 24% to 59%) and at 95% specificity, sensitivity was 29% (95% CI 15% to 49%). The median specificity of real-time PCR on blood products was 92%. We did not formally compare the diagnostic test accuracy of PCR and real-time PCR, as direct comparison studies were lacking. Three of 15 studies analysing PCR on blood products reported the timing of sample collection in the studies included in the meta-analyses (range 1 to 7 days postonset of symptoms), and nine out of 16 studies analysing real-time PCR on blood products (range 1 to 19 days postonset of symptoms). In PCR studies, specificity was lower in settings with high leptospirosis prevalence. Other investigations of heterogeneity did not identify statistically significant associations. Two studies suggested that PCR and real-time PCR may be more sensitive on blood samples collected early in the disease stage. Results of other index tests were described narratively.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe validity of review findings are limited and should be interpreted with caution. There is a substantial between-study variability in the accuracy of PCR and real-time PCR, as well as a substantial variability in the prevalence of leptospirosis. Consequently, the position of PCR and real-time PCR in the clinical pathway depends on regional considerations such as disease prevalence, factors that are likely to influence accuracy, and downstream consequences of test results. There is insufficient evidence to conclude which of the nucleic acid and antigen detection tests is the most accurate. There is preliminary evidence that PCR and real-time PCR are more sensitive on blood samples collected early in the disease stage, but this needs to be confirmed in future studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who do the results of this review apply to?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The results may apply to people who may have leptospirosis. However, the performance of the PCR and real-time PCR vary considerably among studies and it is yet unclear what causes this difference in performances. It is probable that the test performs better or worse depending on how prevalent leptospirosis is in the region, and depending on the time between the onset of symptoms and time of testing. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise the results of this review to all settings." } ]
query-laysum	22153	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSelf-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury regardless of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation) is a growing problem in most countries, often repeated, and associated with suicide. Evidence assessing the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of SH in children and adolescents is lacking, especially when compared with the evidence for psychosocial interventions in adults. This review therefore updates a previous Cochrane Review (last published in 2015) on the role of interventions for SH in children and adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of psychosocial interventions or pharmacological agents or natural products for SH compared to comparison types of care (e.g. treatment-as-usual, routine psychiatric care, enhanced usual care, active comparator, placebo, alternative pharmacological treatment, or a combination of these) for children and adolescents (up to 18 years of age) who engage in SH.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialized Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [CDSR]), together with MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PsycINFO (to 4 July 2020).\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing specific psychosocial interventions or pharmacological agents or natural products with treatment-as-usual (TAU), routine psychiatric care, enhanced usual care (EUC), active comparator, placebo, alternative pharmacological treatment, or a combination of these, in children and adolescents with a recent (within six months of trial entry) episode of SH resulting in presentation to hospital or clinical services. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a repeated episode of SH over a maximum follow-up period of two years. Secondary outcomes included treatment adherence, depression, hopelessness, general functioning, social functioning, suicidal ideation, and suicide.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence internals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs. The overall quality of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. repetition of SH at post-intervention) was appraised for each intervention using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included data from 17 trials with a total of 2280 participants. Participants in these trials were predominately female (87.6%) with a mean age of 14.7 years (standard deviation (SD) 1.5 years). The trials included in this review investigated the effectiveness of various forms of psychosocial interventions. None of the included trials evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological agents in this clinical population. There was a lower rate of SH repetition for DBT-A (30%) as compared to TAU, EUC, or alternative psychotherapy (43%) on repetition of SH at post-intervention in four trials (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.82; N = 270; k = 4; high-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference for individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based psychotherapy and TAU for repetition of SH at post-intervention (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.12 to 7.24; N = 51; k = 2; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether mentalisation based therapy for adolescents (MBT-A) reduces repetition of SH at post-intervention as compared to TAU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 8.46; N = 85; k = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was substantial ( I² = 68%). There is probably no evidence of a difference between family therapy and either TAU or EUC on repetition of SH at post-intervention (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.07; N = 191; k = 2; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was no evidence of a difference for compliance enhancement approaches on repetition of SH by the six-month follow-up assessment, for group-based psychotherapy at the six- or 12-month follow-up assessments, for a remote contact intervention (emergency cards) at the 12-month assessment, or for therapeutic assessment at the 12- or 24-month follow-up assessments.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the moderate or very low quality of the available evidence, and the small number of trials identified, there is only uncertain evidence regarding a number of psychosocial interventions in children and adolescents who engage in SH. Further evaluation of DBT-A is warranted. Given the evidence for its benefit in adults who engage in SH, individual CBT-based psychotherapy should also be further developed and evaluated in children and adolescents.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which studies were included in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "To be included in the review, studies had to be randomised controlled trials of either psychosocial or drug treatments for children and adolescents up to 18 years of age who had recently engaged in SH." } ]
query-laysum	22154	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMénière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Aminoglycosides are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition. The aim of this treatment is to partially or completely destroy the balance function of the affected ear. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic aminoglycosides versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic aminoglycosides with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included five RCTs with a total of 137 participants. All studies compared the use of gentamicin to either placebo or no treatment. Due to the very small numbers of participants in these trials, and concerns over the conduct and reporting of some studies, we considered all the evidence in this review to be very low-certainty.\nImprovement in vertigo\nThis outcome was assessed by only two studies, and they used different time periods for reporting. Improvement in vertigo was reported by more participants who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (16/16 participants who received gentamicin, compared to 0/16 participants with no intervention; risk ratio (RR) 33.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.15 to 507; 1 study; 32 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and at > 12 months follow-up (12/12 participants receiving gentamicin, compared to 6/10 participants receiving placebo; RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.69; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis for this outcome, the certainty of the evidence was very low and we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the results.\nChange in vertigo\nAgain, two studies assessed this outcome, but used different methods of measuring vertigo and assessed the outcome at different time points. We were therefore unable to carry out any meta-analysis or draw any meaningful conclusions from the results. Global scores of vertigo were lower for those who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (mean difference (MD) -1 point, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.32; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence; four-point scale; minimally clinically important difference presumed to be one point) and at > 12 months (MD -1.8 points, 95% CI -2.49 to -1.11; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Vertigo frequency was also lower at > 12 months for those who received gentamicin (0 attacks per year in participants receiving gentamicin compared to 11 attacks per year for those receiving placebo; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nSerious adverse events\nNone of the included studies provided information on the total number of participants who experienced a serious adverse event. It is unclear whether this is because no adverse events occurred, or because they were not assessed or reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for the use of intratympanic gentamicin in the treatment of Ménière's disease is very uncertain. This is primarily due to the fact that there are few published RCTs in this area, and all the studies we identified enrolled a very small number of participants. As the studies assessed different outcomes, using different methods, and reported at different time points, we were not able to pool the results to obtain more reliable estimates of the efficacy of this treatment. More people may report an improvement in vertigo following gentamicin treatment, and scores of vertigo symptoms may also improve. However, the limitations of the evidence mean that we cannot be sure of these effects. Although there is the potential for intratympanic gentamicin to cause harm (for example, hearing loss) we did not find any information about the risks of treatment in this review.\nConsensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analysis of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out:\n- whether there was evidence that intratympanic aminoglycosides (including gentamicin) work at reducing the symptoms of Ménière's disease;\n- whether this treatment might cause any harm." } ]
query-laysum	22155	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRituximab is a selective, B-cell depleting, biologic agent for treating refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeted against CD 20 that is promoted as therapy for patients who fail to respond to other biologics. There is evidence to suggest that rituximab is effective and well tolerated when used in combination with methotrexate for RA.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of rituximab for the treatment of RA.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a search (until January 2014) in electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science), clinical trials registries, and websites of regulatory agencies. Reference lists from comprehensive reviews were also screened.\nSelection criteria\nAll controlled trials comparing treatment with rituximab as monotherapy or in combination with any disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) (traditional or biologic) versus placebo or other DMARD (traditional or biologic) in adult patients with active RA.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and abstracted data from each study.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies with 2720 patients. For six studies selection bias could not be evaluated and two studies were considered to have low risk of bias. The level of evidence ranged from low to high, but was rated as moderate for most outcomes. We have prioritised reporting of rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate since this is the approved dose and most commonly used combination. We also reported data on other combinations and doses as supplementary information in the results section of the review.\nAmerican College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rates were statistically significantly improved with rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate compared with methotrexate alone at 24 to 104 weeks. The RR for achieving an ACR 50 at 24 weeks was 3.3 (95% CI 2.3 to 4.6); 29% of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate achieved the ACR 50 compared to 9% of controls. The absolute treatment benefit (ATB) was 21% (95% CI 16% to 25%) with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 9).\nAt 52 weeks, the RR for achieving clinical remission (Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28 joints < 2.6) with rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate compared with methotrexate monotherapy was 2.4 (95% CI 1.7 to 3.5); 22% of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate achieved clinical remission compared to 11% of controls. The ATB was 11% (95% CI 2% to 20%) with a NNT of 7 (95% CI 4 to 13).\nAt 24 weeks, the RR for achieving a clinically meaningful improvement (CMI) in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (> 0.22) for patients receiving rituximab combined with methotrexate compared to patients on methotrexate alone was 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1). The ATB was 24% (95% CI 12% to 36%) with an NNT of 5 (95% CI 3 to 13). At 104 weeks, the RR for achieving a CMI in HAQ (> 0.22) was 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6). The ATB was 24% (95% CI 16% to 31%) with a NNT of 5 (95% CI 3 to 7).\nAt 24 weeks, the RR for preventing radiographic progression in patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate was 1.2 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.4) compared to methotrexate alone; 70% of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate had no radiographic progression compared to 59% of controls. The ATB was 11% (95% CI 2% to 19%) and the NNT was 10 (95% CI 5 to 57). Similar benefits were observed at 52 to 56 weeks and 104 weeks.\nStatistically significantly more patients achieved a CMI on the physical and mental components of the quality of life, measured by the Short Form (SF)-36, in the rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate-treated group compared with methotrexate alone at 24 to 52 weeks (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.4; NNT 4, 95% CI 3 to 8 and RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.9; NNT 8, 95% CI 5 to 19, respectively); 34 and 13 more patients out of 100 showed an improvement in the physical component of the quality of life measure compared to methotrexate alone (95% CI 5% to 84%; 95% CI 7% to 8%, respectively).\nThere was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in the rates of withdrawals because of adverse events or for other reasons (that is, withdrawal of consent, violation, administrative, failure to return) in either group. However, statistically significantly more people receiving the control drug withdrew from the study compared to those receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate at all times (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.50; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75, respectively). At 104 weeks, 37% withdrew from the control group and 20% withdrew from the rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate group. The absolute risk difference (ARD) was -20% (95% CI -34% to -5%) with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 7 (95% CI 5 to 11).\nA greater proportion of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate developed adverse events after their first infusion compared to those receiving methotrexate monotherapy and placebo infusions (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.9); 26% of those taking rituximab plus methotrexate reported more events associated with their first infusion compared to 16% of those on the control regimen with an ARD of 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%) and a NNH of 11 (95% CI 21 to 8). However, no statistically significant differences were noted in the rates of serious adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from eight studies suggests that rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate is significantly more efficacious than methotrexate alone for improving the symptoms of RA and preventing disease progression.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Serious adverse events\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "- 4 less people out of 100 experienced serious side effects after 2 years with rituximab plus methotrexate compared to methotrexate alone (-4% absolute harms).\n- 13 people out of 100 who took rituximab plus methotrexate had side effects compared to 17 out of 100 who took methotrexate alone.\n*1% unit difference due to rounding." } ]
query-laysum	22156	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review examined the effects of supervised group aquatic training programs (led by an instructor). We defined aquatic training as exercising in a pool while standing at waist, chest, or shoulder depth. This review is part of the update of the 'Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome' review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2007.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefits and harms of aquatic exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2 (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Dissertation Abstracts, WHO international Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and AMED, as well as other sources (i.e., reference lists from key journals, identified articles, meta-analyses, and reviews of all types of treatment for fibromyalgia) from inception to October 2013. Using Cochrane methods, we screened citations, abstracts, and full-text articles. Subsequently, we identified aquatic exercise training studies.\nSelection criteria\nSelection criteria were: a) full-text publication of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in adults diagnosed with fibromyalgia based on published criteria, and b) between-group data for an aquatic intervention and a control or other intervention. We excluded studies if exercise in water was less than 50% of the full intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data (24 outcomes), of which we designated seven as major outcomes: multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain, stiffness, muscle strength, submaximal cardiorespiratory function, withdrawal rates and adverse effects. We resolved discordance through discussion. We evaluated interventions using mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Where two or more studies provided data for an outcome, we carried out meta-analysis. In addition, we set and used a 15% threshold for calculation of clinically relevant differences.\nMain results\nWe included 16 aquatic exercise training studies (N = 881; 866 women and 15 men). Nine studies compared aquatic exercise to control, five studies compared aquatic to land-based exercise, and two compared aquatic exercise to a different aquatic exercise program.\nWe rated the risk of bias related to random sequence generation (selection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias), and other bias as low. We rated blinding of participants and personnel (selection and performance bias) and allocation concealment (selection bias) as low risk and unclear. The assessment of the evidence showed limitations related to imprecision, high statistical heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals.\nAquatic versus control\nWe found statistically significant improvements (P value < 0.05) in all of the major outcomes. Based on a 100-point scale, multidimensional function improved by six units (MD -5.97, 95% CI -9.06 to -2.88; number needed to treat (NNT) 5, 95% CI 3 to 9), self reported physical function by four units (MD -4.35, 95% CI -7.77 to -0.94; NNT 6, 95% CI 3 to 22), pain by seven units (MD -6.59, 95% CI -10.71 to -2.48; NNT 5, 95% CI 3 to 8), and stiffness by 18 units (MD -18.34, 95% CI -35.75 to -0.93; NNT 3, 95% CI 2 to 24) more in the aquatic than the control groups. The SMD for muscle strength as measured by knee extension and hand grip was 0.63 standard deviations higher compared to the control group (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; NNT 4, 95% CI 3 to 12) and cardiovascular submaximal function improved by 37 meters on six-minute walk test (95% CI 4.14 to 69.92). Only two major outcomes, stiffness and muscle strength, met the 15% threshold for clinical relevance (improved by 27% and 37% respectively). Withdrawals were similar in the aquatic and control groups and adverse effects were poorly reported, with no serious adverse effects reported.\nAquatic versus land-based\nThere were no statistically significant differences between interventions for multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain or stiffness: 0.91 units (95% CI -4.01 to 5.83), -5.85 units (95% CI -12.33 to 0.63), -0.75 units (95% CI -10.72 to 9.23), and two units (95% CI -8.88 to 1.28) respectively (all based on a 100-point scale), or in submaximal cardiorespiratory function (three seconds on a 100-meter walk test, 95% CI -1.77 to 7.77). We found a statistically significant difference between interventions for strength, favoring land–based training (2.40 kilo pascals grip strength, 95% CI 4.52 to 0.28). None of the outcomes in the aquatic versus land comparison reached clinically relevant differences of 15%. Withdrawals were similar in the aquatic and land groups and adverse effects were poorly reported, with no serious adverse effects in either group.\nAquatic versus aquatic (Ai Chi versus stretching in the water, exercise in pool water versus exercise in sea water)\nAmong the major outcomes the only statistically significant difference between interventions was for stiffness, favoring Ai Chi (1.00 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.69).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow to moderate quality evidence relative to control suggests that aquatic training is beneficial for improving wellness, symptoms, and fitness in adults with fibromyalgia. Very low to low quality evidence suggests that there are benefits of aquatic and land-based exercise, except in muscle strength (very low quality evidence favoring land). No serious adverse effects were reported.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence - aquatic versus land-based\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "As so few studies have been done so far, we are very uncertain about the results." } ]
query-laysum	22157	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSeveral comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons.\n1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib\nPazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants.\n2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib\nSunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.\n3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib\nSunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.\n4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab\nSunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The certainty of the evidence for most outcomes was low to high, meaning that there is some uncertainty regarding the findings. Nevertheless, there is sufficient data for us to make definitive conclusions regarding how these drugs should be used in the management of patients with kidney cancer which has spread." } ]
query-laysum	22158	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHerpes zoster, commonly known as shingles, is a neurocutaneous disease caused by the reactivation of the virus that causes varicella (chickenpox). After resolution of the varicella episode, the virus can remain latent in the sensitive dorsal ganglia of the spine. Years later, with declining immunity, the varicella zoster virus (VZV) can reactivate and cause herpes zoster, an extremely painful condition that can last many weeks or months and significantly compromise the quality of life of the affected person. The natural process of ageing is associated with a reduction in cellular immunity, and this predisposes older adults to herpes zoster. Vaccination with an attenuated form of the VZV activates specific T-cell production avoiding viral reactivation. Two types of herpes zoster vaccines are currently available. One of them is the single-dose live attenuated zoster vaccine (LZV), which contains the same live attenuated virus used in the chickenpox vaccine, but it has over 14-fold more plaque-forming units of the attenuated virus per dose. The other is the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) which does not contain the live attenuated virus, but rather a small fraction of the virus that cannot replicate but can boost immunogenicity. The recommended schedule for the RZV is two doses two months apart.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010, and updated in 2012, 2016, and 2019.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaccination for preventing herpes zoster in older adults.\nSearch methods\nFor this 2022 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1948 to October 2022), Embase (2010 to October 2022), CINAHL (1981 to October 2022), LILACS (1982 to October 2022), and three trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies involving healthy older adults (mean age 60 years or older). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing zoster vaccine (any dose and potency) versus any other type of intervention (e.g. varicella vaccine, antiviral medication), placebo, or no intervention (no vaccine). Outcomes were cumulative incidence of herpes zoster, adverse events (death, serious adverse events, systemic reactions, or local reaction occurring at any time after vaccination), and dropouts.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included two new studies involving 1736 participants in this update. The review now includes a total of 26 studies involving 90,259 healthy older adults with a mean age of 63.7 years. Only three studies assessed the cumulative incidence of herpes zoster in groups that received vaccines versus placebo. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries in Europe and North America and included healthy Caucasians (understood to be white participants) aged 60 years or over with no immunosuppressive comorbidities. Two studies were conducted in Japan and one study was conducted in the Republic of Korea. Sixteen studies used LZV. Ten studies tested an RZV.\nThe overall certainty of the evidence was moderate, which indicates that the intervention probably works. Most data for the primary outcome (cumulative incidence of herpes zoster) and secondary outcomes (adverse events and dropouts) came from studies that had a low risk of bias and included a large number of participants.\nThe cumulative incidence of herpes zoster at up to three years of follow-up was lower in participants who received the LZV (one dose subcutaneously) than in those who received placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.56; risk difference (RD) 2%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; moderate-certainty evidence) in the largest study, which included 38,546 participants. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21) or deaths (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher cumulative incidence of one or more adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.11; RD 23%; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.3) and injection site adverse events (RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.93 to 7.21; RD 28%; NNTH 3.6; moderate-certainty evidence) of mild to moderate intensity. These data came from four studies with 6980 participants aged 60 years or older.\nTwo studies (29,311 participants for safety evaluation and 22,022 participants for efficacy evaluation) compared RZV (two doses intramuscularly, two months apart) versus placebo. Participants who received the new vaccine had a lower cumulative incidence of herpes zoster at 3.2 years follow-up (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.23; RD 3%; NNTB 33; moderate-certainty evidence), probably indicating a favourable profile of the intervention. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups in cumulative incidence of serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) or deaths (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; moderate-certainty evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher cumulative incidence of adverse events, any systemic symptom (RR 2.23, 95% CI 2.12 to 2.34; RD 33%; NNTH 3.0), and any local symptom (RR 6.89, 95% CI 6.37 to 7.45; RD 67%; NNTH 1.5). Although most participants reported that their symptoms were of mild to moderate intensity, the risk of dropouts (participants not returning for the second dose, two months after the first dose) was higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.39; RD 1%; NNTH 100, moderate-certainty evidence).\nOnly one study reported funding from a non-commercial source (a university research foundation). All other included studies received funding from pharmaceutical companies.\nWe did not conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses\nAuthors' conclusions\nLZV (single dose) and RZV (two doses) are probably effective in preventing shingles disease for at least three years. To date, there are no data to recommend revaccination after receiving the basic schedule for each type of vaccine. Both vaccines produce systemic and injection site adverse events of mild to moderate intensity. The conclusions did not change in relation to the previous version of the systematic review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Safety\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Both vaccines are probably safe (moderate-certainty evidence) for unwanted effects.\nIn studies that tested RZV, which requires a second dose two months later, the dropout rate (number of persons who did not receive the second dose) was higher in the group that received the real vaccine than in the group that received the fake vaccine. This can be quantified in such a way that for every 100 healthy older adults vaccinated with two doses of the real vaccine, one older adult who received the first dose of this vaccine did not receive the second dose. The reactogenicity (side effects) of the first dose of the vaccine may have contributed to this behaviour." } ]
query-laysum	22159	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAdult smoking usually has its roots in adolescence. If individuals do not take up smoking during this period it is unlikely that they ever will. Further, once smoking becomes established, cessation is challenging; the probability of subsequently quitting is inversely proportional to the age of initiation. One novel approach to reducing the prevalence of youth smoking is the use of incentives.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of incentives on preventing children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years) from starting to smoke. It was also our intention to assess, where possible, the dose-response of incentives, the costs of incentive programmes, whether incentives are more or less effective in combination with other interventions to prevent smoking initiation, and any unintended consequences arising from the use of incentives.\nSearch methods\nFor the original review (published 2012) we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CSA databases and PsycINFO for terms relating to incentives, in combination with terms for smoking and tobacco use, and children and adolescents. The most recent searches were of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and were carried out in December 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allocating children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years) as individuals, groups or communities to intervention or control conditions, where the intervention included an incentive aimed at preventing smoking uptake. We also considered controlled trials (CTs) with baseline measures and post-intervention outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted and independently assessed the data. The primary outcome was the smoking status of children or adolescents at follow-up who reported no smoking at baseline. We required a minimum follow-up of six months from baseline and assessed each included study for risks of bias. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial; we did not require biochemical validation of self-reported tobacco use for study inclusion. Where possible we combined eligible studies to calculate pooled estimates at the longest follow-up, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method, grouping studies by study design.\nMain results\nWe identified three eligible RCTs and five CTs, including participants aged 11 to 14 years, who were non-smokers at baseline. Of the eight trials identified, six had analyzable data relevant for this review, which contributed to meta-analyses (7275 participants in total: 4003 intervention; 3272 control; 2484 participants after adjusting for clustering). All except one of the studies tested the 'Smokefree Class Competition' (SFC), which has been widely implemented throughout Europe. In this competition, classes with youth generally between the ages of 11 and 14 years commit to being smoke-free for a six-month period, and report their smoking status regularly. If 90% or more of the class are non-smokers at the end of the six months, the class goes into a competition to win prizes. The one study that was not a trial of the SFC was a controlled trial in which schools in two communities were assigned to the intervention, with schools in a third community acting as controls. Students in the intervention community with lower smoking rates at the end of the project (one school year) received rewards.\nMost studies resulted in statistically non-significant results. Only one study of the SFC reported a significant effect of the competition on the prevention of smoking at the longest follow-up. However, this study was at risk of multiple biases, and when we calculated the adjusted risk ratio (RR) we no longer detected a statistically significant difference. The pooled RR for the more robust RCTs (3 studies, n = 3056 participants/1107 adjusted for clustering) suggests that there is no statistically significant effect of incentives, in the form of the SFC, to prevent smoking initiation among children and adolescents in the long term (RR 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.19). Pooled results from the non-randomized trials also did not detect a significant effect of the SFC, and we were unable to extract data on our outcome of interest from the one trial that did not study the SFC. There is little robust evidence to suggest that unintended consequences (such as making false claims about their smoking status and bullying of smoking students) are consistently associated with such interventions, although this has not been the focus of much research. There was insufficient information to assess the dose-response relationship or to report costs of incentives for preventing smoking uptake.\nWe judged the included RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias, and the non-RCTs to be at high risk of bias. Using GRADE, we rated the overall quality of the evidence for our primary outcome as 'low' (for RCTs) and 'very low' (for non-RCTs), because of imprecision (all studies had wide confidence intervals), and for the risks of bias identified. We further downgraded the non-RCT evidence, due to issues with the non-RCT study design, likely to introduce further bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe very limited evidence currently available suggests that incentive programmes do not prevent smoking initiation among youth. However, there are relatively few published studies and these are of variable quality. In addition, trials included in the meta-analyses were all studies of the SFC, which distributed small to moderately-sized prizes to whole classes, usually through a lottery system. It is therefore possible that other incentive programmes could be more successful at preventing smoking uptake in young people.\nFuture studies might investigate the efficacy of a wider range of incentives, including those given to individual participants to prevent smoking uptake, whilst considering both the effect of incentives on smoking initiation and the progression to smoking. It would be useful if incentives were evaluated in varying populations from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, and if intervention components were described in detail.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We judged the overall quality of evidence to be low or very low, because it is based on a small number of studies, with imprecise effects and with a high or uncertain risk of bias." } ]
query-laysum	22160	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review is one of a series of reviews about exercise training for people with fibromyalgia that will replace the \"Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome\" review first published in 2002.\nObjectives\n• To evaluate the benefits and harms of aerobic exercise training for adults with fibromyalgia\n• To assess the following specific comparisons\n० Aerobic versus control conditions (eg, treatment as usual, wait list control, physical activity as usual)\n० Aerobic versus aerobic interventions (eg, running vs brisk walking)\n० Aerobic versus non-exercise interventions (eg, medications, education)\n\nWe did not assess specific comparisons involving aerobic exercise versus other exercise interventions (eg, resistance exercise, aquatic exercise, flexibility exercise, mixed exercise). Other systematic reviews have examined or will examine these comparisons (Bidonde 2014; Busch 2013).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Thesis and Dissertation Abstracts, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry up to June 2016, unrestricted by language, and we reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia that compared aerobic training interventions (dynamic physical activity that increases breathing and heart rate to submaximal levels for a prolonged period) versus no exercise or another intervention. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, withdrawals, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, performed a risk of bias assessment, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. We used a 15% threshold for calculation of clinically relevant differences between groups.\nMain results\nWe included 13 RCTs (839 people). Studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection bias (owing to lack of blinding for self-reported outcomes) and had low risk of attrition and reporting bias. We prioritized the findings when aerobic exercise was compared with no exercise control and present them fully here.\nEight trials (with 456 participants) provided low-quality evidence for pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, and physical function; and moderate-quality evidence for withdrawals and HRQL at completion of the intervention (6 to 24 weeks). With the exception of withdrawals and adverse events, major outcome measures were self-reported and were expressed on a 0 to 100 scale (lower values are best, negative mean differences (MDs)/standardized mean differences (SMDs) indicate improvement). Effects for aerobic exercise versus control were as follows: HRQL: mean 56.08; five studies; N = 372; MD -7.89, 95% CI -13.23 to -2.55; absolute improvement of 8% (3% to 13%) and relative improvement of 15% (5% to 24%); pain intensity: mean 65.31; six studies; N = 351; MD -11.06, 95% CI -18.34 to -3.77; absolute improvement of 11% (95% CI 4% to 18%) and relative improvement of 18% (7% to 30%); stiffness: mean 69; one study; N = 143; MD -7.96, 95% CI -14.95 to -0.97; absolute difference in improvement of 8% (1% to 15%) and relative change in improvement of 11.4% (21.4% to 1.4%); physical function: mean 38.32; three studies; N = 246; MD -10.16, 95% CI -15.39 to -4.94; absolute change in improvement of 10% (15% to 5%) and relative change in improvement of 21.9% (33% to 11%); and fatigue: mean 68; three studies; N = 286; MD -6.48, 95% CI -14.33 to 1.38; absolute change in improvement of 6% (12% improvement to 0.3% worse) and relative change in improvement of 8% (16% improvement to 0.4% worse). Pooled analysis resulted in a risk ratio (RR) of moderate quality for withdrawals (17 per 100 and 20 per 100 in control and intervention groups, respectively; eight studies; N = 456; RR 1.25, 95%CI 0.89 to 1.77; absolute change of 5% more withdrawals with exercise (3% fewer to 12% more).\nThree trials provided low-quality evidence on long-term effects (24 to 208 weeks post intervention) and reported that benefits for pain and function persisted but did not for HRQL or fatigue. Withdrawals were similar, and investigators did not assess stiffness and adverse events.\nWe are uncertain about the effects of one aerobic intervention versus another, as the evidence was of low to very low quality and was derived from single trials only, precluding meta-analyses. Similarly, we are uncertain of the effects of aerobic exercise over active controls (ie, education, three studies; stress management training, one study; medication, one study) owing to evidence of low to very low quality provided by single trials. Most studies did not measure adverse events; thus we are uncertain about the risk of adverse events associated with aerobic exercise.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared with control, moderate-quality evidence indicates that aerobic exercise probably improves HRQL and all-cause withdrawal, and low-quality evidence suggests that aerobic exercise may slightly decrease pain intensity, may slightly improve physical function, and may lead to little difference in fatigue and stiffness. Three of the reported outcomes reached clinical significance (HRQL, physical function, and pain). Long-term effects of aerobic exercise may include little or no difference in pain, physical function, and all-cause withdrawal, and we are uncertain about long-term effects on remaining outcomes. We downgraded the evidence owing to the small number of included trials and participants across trials, and because of issues related to unclear and high risks of bias (performance, selection, and detection biases). Aerobic exercise appears to be well tolerated (similar withdrawal rates across groups), although evidence on adverse events is scarce, so we are uncertain about its safety.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Withdrawal from treatment\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "A total of 20 out of 100 people dropped out of the aerobic group compared with 17 out of 100 from the control group (3% more, ranging from 3% fewer to 12% more) for any reason." } ]
query-laysum	22161	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany individuals who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia experience a range of distressing and debilitating symptoms. These can include positive symptoms (such as delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech), cognitive symptoms (such as trouble focusing or paying attention or using information to make decisions), and negative symptoms (such as diminished emotional expression, avolition, alogia, and anhedonia). Antipsychotic drugs are often only partially effective, particularly in treating negative symptoms, indicating the need for additional treatment. Mirtazapine is an antidepressant drug that when taken in addition to an antipsychotic may offer some benefit for negative symptoms.\nObjectives\nTo systematically assess the effects of mirtazapine as adjunct treatment for people with schizophrenia.\nSearch methods\nThe Information Specialist of Cochrane Schizophrenia searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) up to May 2018.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data focusing on mirtazapine adjunct for people with schizophrenia.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. For included studies we assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs with a total of 310 participants. All studies compared mirtazapine adjunct with placebo adjunct and were of short-term duration. We considered five studies to have a high risk of bias for either incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, or other bias.\nOur main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in mental state (negative and positive symptoms), leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in global state, clinically important change in quality of life, number of days in hospital and incidence of serious adverse events.\nOne trial defined a reduction in the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) overall score from baseline of at least 20% as no important response for negative symptoms. There was no evidence of a clear difference between the two treatments with similar numbers of participants from each group showing no important response to treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14, 1 RCT, n = 20, very low-quality evidence).\nClinically important change in positive symptoms was not reported, however, clinically important change in overall mental state was reported by two trials and data for this outcome showed a favourable effect for mirtazapine (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.92; I2 = 75%, 2 RCTs, n = 77, very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference for numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.66, 9 RCTs, n = 310, moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of a clear difference in global state Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) severity scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.48, 1 RCT, n = 39, very low-quality evidence). A favourable effect for mirtazapine adjunct was found for the outcome clinically important change in akathisia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.52, 2 RCTs, n = 86, low-quality evidence; I2 = 61%I). No data were reported for quality life or number of days in hospital.\nIn addition to the main outcomes of interest, there was evidence relating to adverse events that the mirtazapine adjunct groups were associated with an increased risk of weight gain (RR 3.19, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.65, 4 RCTs, n = 127) and sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.68, 7 RCTs, n = 223).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence is primarily of very low quality and indicates that mirtazapine adjunct is not clearly associated with an effect for negative symptoms, but there is some indication of a positive effect on overall mental state and akathisia. No effect was found for global state or leaving the study early and data were not available for quality of life or service use. Due to limitations of the quality and applicability of the evidence it is not possible to make any firm conclusions, the role of mirtazapine adjunct in routine clinical practice remains unclear. This underscores the need for new high-quality evidence to further evaluate mirtazapine adjunct for schizophrenia.\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": "Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness. Those affected typically exhibit abnormal social behaviour and an inability to judge what is real. There are three main types of symptoms. Positive symptoms are where patients hear voices or see things that are not there and can also have fixed false beliefs (delusions). Examples of negative symptoms are lack of motivation and withdrawal from social activities. Cognitive symptoms include a reduced ability to concentrate or difficulty in using information to make decisions. Schizophrena can be extremely debilitating, greatly affecting a person's social functioning and their ability to live independently.\nAntipsychotic medications are the main treatment for schizophrenia and are effective in treating the positive symptoms of schizophrenia but often do not fully treat the negative symptoms. Additional treatments (adjuncts) are often used alongside antipsychotics to help treat the negative symptoms. Antidepressant medications, such as mirtazapine, can be used as adjunct treatment. Mirtazapine may have the potential to improve the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, but also has the potential to cause unpleasant side effects. Evidence summarising mirtazapine's benefits and harms for people with schizophrenia is needed." } ]
query-laysum	22162	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLateral elbow pain, or tennis elbow, is a common condition that causes pain in the elbow and forearm. Although self-limiting, it can be associated with significant disability and often results in work absence. It is often treated with topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a review first published in 2002 (search date October 11, 2012).\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of topical and oral NSAIDs for treating people with lateral elbow pain.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and SciSearch up to October 11, 2012. No language restriction was applied.\nSelection criteria\nStudies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs or CCTs) that compared topical or oral NSAIDs with placebo or another intervention, or compared two NSAIDs in adults with lateral elbow pain. Outcomes of interest were pain, function, quality of life, pain-free grip strength, overall treatment success, work loss and adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted the data, and performed a risk of bias assessment.\nMain results\nFifteen trials, involving 759 participants and reporting 17 comparisons, were included in the review. Four new trials identified from the updated search were included, along with 11 of 14 trials included in the original review (three trials included in the previous review were found not to meet inclusion criteria). Of eight trials that studied topical NSAIDs (301 participants), five compared topical NSAIDs with placebo, one compared manipulative therapy and topical NSAIDs with manipulative therapy alone, one compared leech therapy with topical NSAIDs and one compared two different topical NSAIDs. Of seven trials that investigated oral NSAIDs (437 participants), two compared oral NSAIDs with placebo, one compared oral NSAIDs and bandaging with bandaging alone, three compared oral NSAIDs with glucocorticoid injection, one compared oral NSAIDs with a vasodilator and two compared two different oral NSAIDs. No trials directly compared topical NSAIDs with oral NSAIDs. Few trials used intention-to-treat analysis, and the sample size of most was small. The median follow-up was 2 weeks (range 1 week to 1 year).\nLow-quality evidence was obtained from three trials (153 participants) suggesting that topical NSAIDs were significantly more effective than placebo with respect to pain in the short term (mean difference -1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.42 to -0.86) and number needed to treat to benefit (7 (95% CI 3 to 21) on a 0 to 10 scale). Low-quality evidence was obtained from one trial (85 participants) indicating that significantly more participants report fair, good or excellent effectiveness with topical NSAIDs versus placebo at 28 days (14 days of therapy) (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.14). No participants withdrew as the result of adverse events, but some studies reported mild adverse effects such as rash in 2.5% of those exposed to topical NSAIDs compared with 1.3% of those exposed to placebo.\nLow-quality and conflicting evidence regarding the benefits of oral NSAIDs obtained from two trials could not be pooled. One trial found significantly greater improvement in pain compared with placebo, and the other trial found no between-group differences; neither trial found differences in function. One trial reported a withdrawal due to adverse effects for a participant in the NSAIDs group. Use of oral NSAIDs was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal side effects compared with placebo in one trial in the review. Another trial reported discontinuation of treatment due to gastrointestinal side effects in four participants taking NSAIDs, and another participant developed an allergic reaction in response to oral NSAIDs.\nVery scant and conflicting evidence regarding the comparative effects of oral NSAIDs and glucocorticoid injection was obtained. One trial reported a significant improvement in pain with glucocorticoid injection, and another found no between-group differences; treatment success was similar between groups (RR of fair, good or excellent effectiveness 0.74; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.26). Transient pain may occur following injection.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere remains limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions about the benefits or harms of topical or oral NSAIDs in treating lateral elbow pain. Although data from five placebo-controlled trials suggest that topical NSAIDs may be beneficial in improving pain (for up to 4 weeks), non-normal distribution of data and other methodological issues precluded firm conclusions. Some people may expect a mild transient skin rash. Evidence about the benefits of oral NSAIDs has been conflicting, although oral NSAID use may result in gastrointestinal adverse effects in some people. No direct comparisons between oral and topical NSAIDs were available. Some trials demonstrated greater benefit from glucocorticoid injection than from NSAIDs in the short term, but this was not apparent in all studies and was not apparent by 6 months in the only study that included longer-term outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Pain (higher scores mean worse or more severe pain)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "- People who used NSAID gel compared with a placebo gel rated their pain 1.6 points lower on a scale of 0 to 10 after 4 weeks (16% absolute improvement).\n- People who applied NSAID gel rated their pain to be 2.14 on a scale of 0 to 10 after 4 weeks.\n- People who applied placebo gel rated their pain to be 3.78 on a scale of 0 to 10." } ]
query-laysum	22163	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nImmunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population-based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient-oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various types of patient reminder and recall interventions to improve receipt of immunizations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2017. We also searched grey literature and trial registers to January 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating immunization-focused patient reminder or recall interventions in children, adolescents, and adults who receive immunizations in any setting. We included no-intervention control groups, standard practice activities that did not include immunization patient reminder or recall, media-based activities aimed at promoting immunizations, or simple practice-based awareness campaigns. We included receipt of any immunizations as eligible outcome measures, excluding special travel immunizations. We excluded patients who were hospitalized for the duration of the study period.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We present results for individual studies as relative rates using risk ratios, and risk differences for randomized trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before-after studies. We present pooled results for randomized trials using the random-effects model.\nMain results\nThe 75 included studies involved child, adolescent, and adult participants in outpatient, community-based, primary care, and other settings in 10 countries.\nPatient reminder or recall interventions, including telephone and autodialer calls, letters, postcards, text messages, combination of mail or telephone, or a combination of patient reminder or recall with outreach, probably improve the proportion of participants who receive immunization (risk ratio (RR) of 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.35; risk difference of 8%) based on moderate certainty evidence from 55 studies with 138,625 participants.\nThree types of single-method reminders improve receipt of immunizations based on high certainty evidence: the use of postcards (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30; eight studies; 27,734 participants), text messages (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; six studies; 7772 participants), and autodialer (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; five studies; 11,947 participants). Two types of single-method reminders probably improve receipt of immunizations based on moderate certainty evidence: the use of telephone calls (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.54; seven studies; 9120 participants) and letters to patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; 27 studies; 81,100 participants).\nBased on high certainty evidence, reminders improve receipt of immunizations for childhood (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.29; risk difference of 8%; 23 studies; 31,099 participants) and adolescent vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42; risk difference of 7%; 10 studies; 30,868 participants). Reminders probably improve receipt of vaccinations for childhood influenza (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.99; risk difference of 22%; five studies; 9265 participants) and adult influenza (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.43; risk difference of 9%; 15 studies; 59,328 participants) based on moderate certainty evidence. They may improve receipt of vaccinations for adult pneumococcus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other non-influenza vaccinations based on low certainty evidence although the confidence interval includes no effect of these interventions (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.78; four studies; 8065 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nPatient reminder and recall systems, in primary care settings, are likely to be effective at improving the proportion of the target population who receive immunizations.\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": "Reminding people to receive their vaccinations increases vaccination rates across different populations." } ]
query-laysum	22164	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMelanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. History-taking and visual inspection of a suspicious lesion by a clinician is usually the first in a series of ‘tests’ to diagnose skin cancer. Establishing the accuracy of visual inspection alone is critical to understating the potential contribution of additional tests to assist in the diagnosis of melanoma.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of visual inspection for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults with limited prior testing and in those referred for further evaluation of a suspicious lesion. Studies were separated according to whether the diagnosis was recorded face-to-face (in-person) or based on remote (image-based) assessment.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: CENTRAL; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nTest accuracy studies of any design that evaluated visual inspection in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. We excluded studies reporting data for ‘clinical diagnosis’ where dermoscopy may or may not have been used.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities per algorithm and threshold using the bivariate hierarchical model. We investigated the impact of: in-person test interpretation; use of a purposely developed algorithm to assist diagnosis; and observer expertise.\nMain results\nWe included 49 publications reporting on a total of 51 study cohorts with 34,351 lesions (including 2499 cases), providing 134 datasets for visual inspection. Across almost all study quality domains, the majority of study reports provided insufficient information to allow us to judge the risk of bias, while in three of four domains that we assessed we scored concerns regarding applicability of study findings as 'high'. Selective participant recruitment, lack of detail regarding the threshold for deciding on a positive test result, and lack of detail on observer expertise were particularly problematic.\nAttempts to analyse studies by degree of prior testing were hampered by a lack of relevant information and by the restricted inclusion of lesions selected for biopsy or excision. Accuracy was generally much higher for in-person diagnosis compared to image-based evaluations (relative diagnostic odds ratio of 8.54, 95% CI 2.89 to 25.3, P < 0.001). Meta-analysis of in-person evaluations that could be clearly placed on the clinical pathway showed a general trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, with the highest sensitivity (92.4%, 95% CI 26.2% to 99.8%) and lowest specificity (79.7%, 95% CI 73.7% to 84.7%) observed in participants with limited prior testing (n = 3 datasets). Summary sensitivities were lower for those referred for specialist assessment but with much higher specificities (e.g. sensitivity 76.7%, 95% CI 61.7% to 87.1%) and specificity 95.7%, 95% CI 89.7% to 98.3%) for lesions selected for excision, n = 8 datasets). These differences may be related to differences in the spectrum of included lesions, differences in the definition of a positive test result, or to variations in observer expertise. We did not find clear evidence that accuracy is improved by the use of any algorithm to assist diagnosis in all settings. Attempts to examine the effect of observer expertise in melanoma diagnosis were hindered due to poor reporting.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVisual inspection is a fundamental component of the assessment of a suspicious skin lesion; however, the evidence suggests that melanomas will be missed if visual inspection is used on its own. The evidence to support its accuracy in the range of settings in which it is used is flawed and very poorly reported. Although published algorithms do not appear to improve accuracy, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the ‘no algorithm’ approach should be preferred in all settings. Despite the volume of research evaluating visual inspection, further prospective evaluation of the potential added value of using established algorithms according to the prior testing or diagnostic difficulty of lesions may be warranted.\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": "Error rates from visual inspection are too high for it to be relied upon alone. Although not evaluated in this review, other technologies need to be used to ensure accurate diagnosis of skin cancer. There is considerable variation and uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of visual inspection alone for the diagnosis of melanoma. There is no evidence to suggest that visual inspection checklists reliably improve the diagnostic accuracy of visual inspection, so recommendations cannot be made about when they should be used. Despite the existence of numerous research studies, further, well-reported studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of visual inspection with and without visual inspection checklists and by clinicians with different levels of expertise are needed." } ]
query-laysum	22165	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTension-type headache (TTH) affects about 1 person in 5 worldwide. It is divided into infrequent episodic TTH (fewer than one headache day per month), frequent episodic TTH (2 to 14 headache days per month), and chronic TTH (15 headache days a month or more). Ketoprofen is one of a number of analgesics suggested for acute treatment of headaches in frequent episodic TTH.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of ketoprofen for treatment of episodic TTH in adults compared with placebo or any active comparator.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database up to May 2016, and also reference lists of relevant published studies and reviews. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' websites.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (parallel-group or cross-over) using oral ketoprofen for symptomatic relief of an acute episode of TTH. Studies had to be prospective, with participants aged 18 years or over, and include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used the numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for oral ketoprofen compared to placebo or an active intervention for a range of outcomes, predominantly those recommended by the International Headache Society (IHS).\nWe assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included four studies, all of which enrolled adults with frequent episodic TTH. They all specified using the IHS diagnostic criteria and reported mean baseline pain of at least moderate intensity. While 1253 people with TTH participated in these studies, the numbers available for any analysis were lower than this because outcomes were inconsistently reported and because many participants received active comparators.\nNone of the included studies were at low risk of bias across all domains considered, although for most studies and domains this was likely to be due to inadequate reporting rather than poor methods. We judged one study to be at high risk of bias due to small size.\nUseful information was available only for ketoprofen 25 mg. For the IHS preferred outcome of being pain-free at two hours the NNT for ketoprofen 25 mg compared with placebo was 9.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.8 to 72) in two studies (272 participants; low quality evidence). The NNT was 3.7 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.3) for pain-free or mild pain at two hours in two studies (272 participants; moderate quality evidence). Fewer people needed rescue medication with ketoprofen 25 mg than with placebo, with a number needed to treat to prevent one event (NNTp) of 6.2 (95% CI 4.3 to 11) in three studies (605 participants; moderate quality evidence). The number of participants reporting any adverse event was higher with ketoprofen 25 mg than placebo (NNH 15, (95% CI 8.7 to 45)) in three studies (651 participants with 66 events; low quality evidence). Most events were of mild to moderate intensity.\nKetoprofen 25 mg was not different from paracetamol 1000 mg in two studies with 276 participants for any efficacy outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence); the RR for pain-free at two hours was 1.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 2.0). The number of participants reporting any adverse event was higher with ketoprofen 25 mg than with paracetamol (NNH 17, 95% CI 8.9 to 130)) in two studies (582 participants, 68 events; low quality evidence).\nStudies reported no serious adverse events.\nWe judged the quality of the evidence comparing ketoprofen 25 mg with placebo or paracetamol 1000 mg as moderate to very low. Where evidence was downgraded it was because of the small number of studies and events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nKetoprofen 25 mg provided a small benefit compared with placebo in terms of being pain-free at two hours or having mild or no pain at two hours for people with frequent episodic TTH who have an acute headache of moderate or severe intensity. Its use was associated with more people experiencing adverse events. Ketoprofen 25 mg was not superior to paracetamol 1000 mg for any efficacy outcome.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "People with frequent episodic tension-type headache have between 2 and 14 headaches days every month. Tension-type headache stops people concentrating and working properly, and results in much disability. When headaches do occur, they get better over time, even without treatment.\nKetoprofen is a commonly used painkiller, available by prescription in most parts of the world but without prescription (over-the-counter) in some. The usual dose is 25 mg or 50 mg taken by mouth." } ]
query-laysum	22166	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nContinual improvement in adjuvant therapies has resulted in a better prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer. A surrogate marker used to detect the spread of disease after treatment of breast cancer is local and regional recurrence. The risk of local and regional recurrence after mastectomy increases with the number of axillary lymph nodes affected by cancer. There is a consensus to use radiotherapy as an adjuvant treatment after mastectomy (postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT)) in women diagnosed with breast cancer and found to have disease in four or more positive axillary lymph nodes. Despite data showing almost double the risk of local and regional recurrence in women treated with mastectomy and found to have one to three positive lymph nodes, there is a lack of international consensus on the use of PMRT in this group.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of PMRT in women diagnosed with early breast cancer and found to have one to three positive axillary lymph nodes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 September 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The inclusion criteria included women diagnosed with breast cancer treated with simple or modified radical mastectomy and axillary surgery (sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone or those undergoing axillary lymph node clearance with or without prior SLNB). We included only women receiving PMRT using X-rays (electron and photon radiation), and we defined the radiotherapy dose to reflect what is currently being recommended (i.e. 40 Gray (Gy) to 50 Gy in 15 to 25/28 fractions in 3 to 5 weeks. The included studies did not administer any boost to the tumour bed. In this review, we excluded studies using neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a supportive treatment before surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used Covidence to screen records. We collected data on tumour characteristics, adjuvant treatments and the outcomes of local and regional recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, time to progression, short- and long-term adverse events and quality of life. We reported on time-to-event outcome measures using the hazard ratio (HR) and subdistribution HR. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool (RoB 1), and we presented overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThe RCTs included in this review were subgroup analyses of original RCTs conducted in the 1980s to assess the effectiveness of PMRT. Hence, the type and duration of adjuvant systemic treatments used in the studies included in this review were suboptimal compared to the current standard of care.\nThe review involved three RCTs with a total of 829 women diagnosed with breast cancer and low-volume axillary disease. Amongst the included studies, only a single study pertained to the modern-day radiotherapy practice. The results from this one study showed a reduction of local and regional recurrence (HR 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.33, 1 study, 522 women; low-certainty evidence) and improvement in overall survival with PMRT (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97, 1 study, 522 women; moderate-certainty evidence). One of the other studies using radiotherapy techniques that do not reflect modern-day practice reported on disease-free survival in women with low-volume axillary disease (subdistribution HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96, 1 study, 173 women). None of the included studies reported on PMRT side effects or quality-of-life outcome measures.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on one study, the use of PMRT in women diagnosed with breast cancer and low-volume axillary disease indicated a reduction in locoregional recurrence and an improvement in survival. There is a need for more research to be conducted using modern-day radiotherapy equipment and methods to support and supplement the review findings.\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 radiotherapy after mastectomy against no radiotherapy in women diagnosed with breast cancer with 1 to 3 involved axillary lymph nodes. Once we identified the relevant studies, we compared and summarised the results. We have also assessed and rated our confidence in the presented evidence based on the study methods and the number of women who participated in the studies." } ]
query-laysum	22167	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDentinal hypersensitivity is characterized by short, sharp pain from exposed dentine that occurs in response to external stimuli such as cold, heat, osmotic, tactile or chemicals, and cannot be explained by any other form of dental defect or pathology. Laser therapy has become a commonly used intervention and might be effective for dentinal hypersensitivity.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of in-office employed lasers versus placebo laser, placebo agents or no treatment for relieving pain of dentinal hypersensitivity.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 October 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2020, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 October 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 October 2020), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 20 October 2020), and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; from 1982 to 20 October 2020). Conference proceedings were searched via the ISI Web of Science and ZETOC, and OpenGrey was searched for grey literature. The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (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\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which in-office lasers were compared to placebo or no treatment on patients aged above 12 years with tooth hypersensitivity.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently and in duplicate screened the search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Disagreement was resolved by discussion. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses only with studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 23 studies with 936 participants and 2296 teeth. We assessed five studies at overall low risk of bias, 13 at unclear, and five at high risk of bias. 17 studies contributed data to the meta-analyses. We divided the studies into six subgroups based on the type of laser and the primary outcome measure. We assessed the change in intensity of pain using quantitative pain scale (visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10 (no pain to worst possible pain)) when tested through air blast and tactile stimuli in three categories of short (0 to 24 hours), medium (more than 24 hours to 2 months), and long term (more than 2 months).\nResults demonstrated that compared to placebo or no treatment the application of all types of lasers combined may reduce pain intensity when tested through air blast stimuli at short term (MD -2.24, 95% CI -3.55 to -0.93; P = 0.0008; 13 studies, 978 teeth; low-certainty evidence), medium term (MD -2.46, 95% CI -3.57 to -1.35; P < 0.0001; 11 studies, 1007 teeth; very low-certainty evidence), and long term (MD -2.60, 95% CI -4.47 to -0.73; P = 0.006; 5 studies, 564 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, compared to placebo or no treatment the application of all types of lasers combined may reduce pain intensity when tested through tactile stimuli at short term (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.03; P = 0.04; 8 studies, 506 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (MD -1.73, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.30; P = 0.02; 9 studies, 591 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in pain intensity for all types of lasers when tested through tactile stimuli in the long term (MD -3.52, 95% CI -10.37 to 3.33; P = 0.31; 2 studies, 184 teeth; very low-certainty evidence).\nMost included studies assessed adverse events and reported that no obvious adverse events were observed during the trials. No studies investigated the impact of laser treatment on participants' quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLimited and uncertain evidence from meta-analyses suggests that the application of laser overall may improve pain intensity when tested through air blast or tactile stimuli at short, medium, or long term when compared to placebo/no treatment. Overall, laser therapy appears to be safe. Future studies including well-designed double-blinded RCTs are necessary to further investigate the clinical efficacy of lasers as well as their cost-effectiveness.\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 23 studies of different durations up to 6 months that involved 936 people (2296 teeth) over 12 years of age with tooth hypersensitivity.\nThe evidence:\n- suggests that lasers may slightly reduce pain after 24 hours compared to placebo or no treatment;\n- is not robust enough to determine if lasers reduce pain beyond 24 hours or not; and\n- suggests that lasers do not cause unwanted effects.\nNo studies investigated the impact of laser treatment on people’s quality of life." } ]
query-laysum	22168	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMajor depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications.\nObjectives\nTo investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used \"informative statements\" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results.\nMain results\nTwenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a \"small and unimportant\" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo).\nThere were \"small and unimportant\" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence).\nResults were similar across other outcomes of benefit.\nIn most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may \"at least slightly\" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may \"at least slightly\" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo.\nThere is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an \"at least slightly\" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option.\nChildren and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.\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 tested new generation antidepressants on children or adolescents (or both) who had been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. We identified 26 such studies. We then assessed the trustworthiness of those studies, and synthesized the findings across the studies." } ]
query-laysum	22169	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAmputation is described as the removal of an external part of the body by trauma, medical illness or surgery. Amputations caused by vascular diseases (dysvascular amputations) are increasingly frequent, commonly due to peripheral arterial disease (PAD), associated with an ageing population, and increased incidence of diabetes and atherosclerotic disease. Interventions for motor rehabilitation might work as a precursor to enhance the rehabilitation process and prosthetic use. Effective rehabilitation can improve mobility, allow people to take up activities again with minimum functional loss and may enhance the quality of life (QoL). Strength training is a commonly used technique for motor rehabilitation following transtibial (below-knee) amputation, aiming to increase muscular strength. Other interventions such as motor imaging (MI), virtual environments (VEs) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) may improve the rehabilitation process and, if these interventions can be performed at home, the overall expense of the rehabilitation process may decrease. Due to the increased prevalence, economic impact and long-term rehabilitation process in people with dysvascular amputations, a review investigating the effectiveness of motor rehabilitation interventions in people with dysvascular transtibial amputations is warranted.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial (below-knee) amputations resulting from peripheral arterial disease or diabetes (dysvascular causes).\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 9 January 2023.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) in people with transtibial amputations resulting from PAD or diabetes (dysvascular causes) comparing interventions for motor rehabilitation such as strength training (including gait training), MI, VEs and PNF against each other.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. prosthesis use, and 2. adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 3. mortality, 4. QoL, 5. mobility assessment and 6. phantom limb pain. We use GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs with a combined total of 30 participants. One study evaluated MI combined with physical practice of walking versus physical practice of walking alone. One study compared two different gait training protocols. The two studies recruited people who already used prosthesis; therefore, we could not assess prosthesis use. The studies did not report mortality, QoL or phantom limb pain. There was a lack of blinding of participants and imprecision as a result of the small number of participants, which downgraded the certainty of the evidence.\nWe identified no studies that compared VE or PNF with usual care or with each other.\nMI combined with physical practice of walking versus physical practice of walking (one RCT, eight participants) showed very low-certainty evidence of no difference in mobility assessment assessed using walking speed, step length, asymmetry of step length, asymmetry of the mean amount of support on the prosthetic side and on the non-amputee side and Timed Up-and-Go test. The study did not assess adverse events.\nOne study compared two different gait training protocols (one RCT, 22 participants). The study used change scores to evaluate if the different gait training strategies led to a difference in improvement between baseline (day three) and post-intervention (day 10). There were no clear differences using velocity, Berg Balance Scale (BBS) or Amputee Mobility Predictor with PROsthesis (AMPPRO) in training approaches in functional outcome (very low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in adverse events comparing the two different gait training protocols.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, there is a paucity of research in the field of motor rehabilitation in dysvascular amputation. We identified very low-certainty evidence that gait training protocols showed little or no difference between the groups in mobility assessments and adverse events. MI combined with physical practice of walking versus physical practice of walking alone showed no clear difference in mobility assessment (very low-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report mortality, QoL, and phantom limb pain, and evaluated participants already using prosthesis, precluding the evaluation of prosthesis use.\nDue to the very low-certainty evidence available based on only two small trials, it remains unclear whether these interventions have an effect on the prosthesis use, adverse events, mobility assessment, mortality, QoL and phantom limb pain. Further well-designed studies that address interventions for motor rehabilitation in dysvascular transtibial amputation may be important to clarify this uncertainty.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched medical databases for well-designed studies in people with below-knee amputations resulting from peripheral arterial disease or diabetes comparing different interventions for motor rehabilitation against each other. The interventions could have been given alone or combined with usual care (for example, wound dressing and stump care)." } ]
query-laysum	22170	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease, a common recessively inherited haemoglobin disorder, affects people from sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Mediterranean basin, Indian subcontinent, Caribbean and South America. It is associated with complications and a reduced life expectancy. Phytomedicines (medicine derived from plants in their original state) encompass many of the plant remedies from traditional healers which the populations most affected would encounter. Laboratory research and limited clinical trials have suggested positive effects of phytomedicines both in vivo and in vitro. However, there has been little systematic appraisal of their benefits. This is an updated version of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and risks of phytomedicines in people with sickle cell disease of all types, of any age, in any setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN), the Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database (AMED), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).\nDates of most recent searches: Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 17 March 2020; ISRCTN: 19 April 2020; AMED: 18 May 2020; ClinicalTrials.gov: 24 April 2020; and the WHO ICTRP: 27 July 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials with participants of all ages with sickle cell disease, in all settings, comparing the administration of phytomedicines, by any mode to placebo or conventional treatment, including blood transfusion and hydroxyurea.\nData collection and analysis\nBoth authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.\nMain results\nThree trials (212 participants) of three phytomedicines: Niprisan® (also known as Nicosan®), Ciklavit® and a powdered extract of Pfaffia paniculata were included. The Phase IIB (pivotal) trial suggests that Niprisan® may be effective in reducing episodes of severe painful sickle cell disease crisis over a six-month period (low-quality evidence). It did not appear to affect the risk of severe complications or the level of anaemia (low-quality evidence).\nThe single trial of Cajanus cajan (Ciklavit®) reported a possible benefit to individuals with painful crises, and a possible adverse effect (non-significant) on the level of anaemia (low-quality evidence).\nWe are uncertain of the effect of Pfaffia paniculata on the laboratory parameters and symptoms of SCD (very low-quality of evidence).\nNo adverse effects were reported with Niprisan® and Pfaffia paniculata (low- to very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile Niprisan® appeared to be safe and effective in reducing severe painful crises over a six-month follow-up period, further trials are required to assess its role in managing people with SCD and the results of its multicentre trials are awaited. Currently, no conclusions can be made regarding the efficacy of Ciklavit® and the powdered root extract of Pfaffia paniculata in managing SCD. Based on the published results for Niprisan® and in view of the limitations in data collection and analysis of the three trials, phytomedicines may have a potential beneficial effect in reducing painful crises in SCD. This needs to be further validated in future trials. More trials with improved study design and data collection are required on the safety and efficacy of phytomedicines used in managing SCD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Sickle cell disease is an inherited blood condition caused by defects in the production of haemoglobin. Haemoglobin is the part of the red blood cell that carries oxygen across the body. Sickle cell disease occurs when people inherit faulty genes responsible for producing haemoglobin from both parents. A variety of complications and a reduced life expectancy are linked with sickle cell disease. Phytomedicines are medicines derived from plants in their original state. People with sickle cell disease may come across them in terms of plant-remedies from traditional healers. Their benefits have not been evaluated systematically. Laboratory work has long suggested that these medicines may help to ease the symptoms of sickle cell disease." } ]
query-laysum	22171	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRespiratory tract infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occur in most people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Established chronic P aeruginosa infection is virtually impossible to eradicate and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Early infection may be easier to eradicate.\nThis is an updated review.\nObjectives\nDoes giving antibiotics for P aeruginosa infection in people with CF at the time of new isolation improve clinical outcomes (e.g. mortality, quality of life and morbidity), eradicate P aeruginosa infection, and delay the onset of chronic infection, but without adverse effects, compared to usual treatment or an alternative antibiotic regimen? We also assessed cost-effectiveness.\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 conference proceedings. Latest search: 24 March 2022.\nWe searched ongoing trials registries. Latest search: 6 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with CF, in whom P aeruginosa had recently been isolated from respiratory secretions. We compared combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous (IV) antibiotics with placebo, usual treatment or other antibiotic combinations. We excluded non-randomised trials and cross-over trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 11 trials (1449 participants) lasting between 28 days and 27 months; some had few participants and most had relatively short follow-up periods. Antibiotics in this review are: oral – ciprofloxacin and azithromycin; inhaled – tobramycin nebuliser solution for inhalation (TNS), aztreonam lysine (AZLI) and colistin; IV – ceftazidime and tobramycin. There was generally a low risk of bias from missing data. In most trials it was difficult to blind participants and clinicians to treatment. Two trials were supported by the manufacturers of the antibiotic used.\nTNS versus placebo\nTNS may improve eradication; fewer participants were still positive for P aeruginosa at one month (odds ratio (OR) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.18; 3 trials, 89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and two months (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.65; 2 trials, 38 participants). We are uncertain whether the odds of a positive culture decrease at 12 months (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.67; 1 trial, 12 participants).\nTNS (28 days) versus TNS (56 days)\nOne trial (88 participants) comparing 28 days to 56 days TNS treatment found duration of treatment may make little or no difference in time to next isolation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence).\nCycled TNS versus culture-based TNS\nOne trial (304 children, one to 12 years old) compared cycled TNS to culture-based therapy and also ciprofloxacin to placebo. We found moderate-certainty evidence of an effect favouring cycled TNS therapy (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.82), although the trial publication reported age-adjusted OR and no difference between groups.\nCiprofloxacin versus placebo added to cycled and culture-based TNS therapy\nOne trial (296 participants) examined the effect of adding ciprofloxacin versus placebo to cycled and culture-based TNS therapy. There is probably no difference between ciprofloxacin and placebo in eradicating P aeruginosa (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence).\nCiprofloxacin and colistin versus TNS\nWe are uncertain whether there is any difference between groups in eradication of P aeruginosa at up to six months (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.23; 1 trial, 58 participants) or up to 24 months (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.42; 1 trial, 47 participants); there was a low rate of short-term eradication in both groups.\nCiprofloxacin plus colistin versus ciprofloxacin plus TNS\nOne trial (223 participants) found there may be no difference in positive respiratory cultures at 16 months between ciprofloxacin with colistin versus TNS with ciprofloxacin (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.29; low-certainty evidence).\nTNS plus azithromycin compared to TNS plus oral placebo\nAdding azithromycin may make no difference to the number of participants eradicating P aeruginosa after a three-month treatment phase (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.35; 1 trial, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence); there was also no evidence of any difference in the time to recurrence.\nCiprofloxacin and colistin versus no treatment\nA single trial only reported one of our planned outcomes; there were no adverse effects in either group.\nAZLI for 14 days plus placebo for 14 days compared to AZLI for 28 days\nWe are uncertain whether giving 14 or 28 days of AZLI makes any difference to the proportion of participants having a negative respiratory culture at 28 days (mean difference (MD) -7.50, 95% CI -24.80 to 9.80; 1 trial, 139 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nCeftazidime with IV tobramycin compared with ciprofloxacin (both regimens in conjunction with three months colistin)\nIV ceftazidime with tobramycin compared with ciprofloxacin may make little or no difference to eradication of P aeruginosa at three months, sustained to 15 months, provided that inhaled antibiotics are also used (RR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.65 to 1.09; P = 0.18; 1 trial, 255 participants; high-certainty evidence). The results do not support using IV antibiotics over oral therapy to eradicate P aeruginosa, based on both eradication rate and financial cost.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that nebulised antibiotics, alone or with oral antibiotics, were better than no treatment for early infection with P aeruginosa. Eradication may be sustained in the short term. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether these antibiotic strategies decrease mortality or morbidity, improve quality of life, or are associated with adverse effects compared to placebo or standard treatment. Four trials comparing two active treatments have failed to show differences in rates of eradication of P aeruginosa. One large trial showed that intravenous ceftazidime with tobramycin is not superior to oral ciprofloxacin when inhaled antibiotics are also used. There is still insufficient evidence to state which antibiotic strategy should be used for the eradication of early P aeruginosa infection in CF, but there is now evidence that intravenous therapy is not superior to oral antibiotics.\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": "Some studies were carried out up to 30 years ago and the results may not apply today, and some studies were small. Most studies were quite short, so we could not show whether treatment made people with CF feel better or live longer. Given the treatments used in most of the studies, it would have been easy for people to guess which treatment they were receiving, which might have influenced some of the results. Two studies were supported by the pharmaceutical industry. Further research is needed to see whether clearing the infection completely improves the well-being and quality of life in people with CF and to establish which antibiotic combination is best at clearing P aeruginosa.\nOverall our confidence in the evidence was moderate to very low, so further research is likely to change our confidence in the results. However, we have higher confidence in one recently published study, which means we can be more sure of the results." } ]
query-laysum	22172	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUterine tachysystole (more than 5 contractions per 10 minutes in 2 consecutive intervals) is common during labour, particularly with use of labour-stimulating agents. Tachysystole may reduce fetal oxygenation by interrupting maternal blood flow to the placenta during contractions. Reducing uterine contractions may improve placental blood flow, improving fetal oxygenation. This review aimed to evaluate the use of tocolytics to reduce or stop uterine contractions for improvement of the condition of the fetus in utero. This new review supersedes an earlier Cochrane Review on the same topic.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of the use of acute tocolysis during labour for uterine tachysystole or suspected fetal distress, or both, on fetal, maternal and neonatal outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2 February 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating acute tocolysis for uterine tachysystole, intrapartum fetal distress, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies (734 women), conducted in hospital settings, predominantly in high-income countries (USA, Austria, Uruguay). Two trials were conducted in upper and lower middle-income countries (South Africa, Sri Lanka). The hospital facilities all had the capacity to perform caesarean section. Overall, the studies had a low risk of bias, except for methods to maintain blinding. All of the trials used a selective beta2 (ß2)-adrenergic agonist in one arm, however the drug used varied, as did the comparator. Limited information was available on maternal outcomes.\nSelective ß2-adrenergic agonist versus no tocolytic agent, whilst awaiting emergency delivery\nThere were two stillbirths, both in the no tocolytic control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 4.55; 2 studies, 57 women; low-quality evidence). One had gross hydrocephalus and the second occurred with vaginal delivery after waiting 55 minutes for caesarean section. The decision for caesarean section delivery was an inclusion criterion in both studies so we could not assess this as an outcome under this comparison. Abnormal fetal heart trace is probably lower with tocolytic treatment (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 2 studies, 43 women; moderate-quality evidence). The effects on the number of babies with Apgar score below seven were uncertain (low-quality evidence).\nIntravenous (IV) atosiban versus IV hexoprenaline (1 study, 26 women)\nOne infant in the hexoprenaline group required > 24 hours in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following a forceps delivery (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.50; low-quality evidence). There were no fetal or neonatal mortalities and no Apgar scores below seven. There was one caesarean delivery in the IV hexoprenaline group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.50; low-quality evidence), and one case of abnormal fetal heart score in the atosiban group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.51; very low-quality evidence).\nIV fenoterol bromhydrate versus emergency delivery (1 study, 390 women)\nNo data were reported for perinatal death, severe morbidity or fetal or neonatal mortality. IV fenoterol probably increases the risk of caesarean delivery (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22; moderate-quality evidence). Fenoterol may have little or no effect on the risk of Apgar scores below seven (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.68; low-quality evidence).\nIV hexoprenaline versus no tocolytic agent, whilst awaiting emergency delivery (1 study, 37 women)\nNo data were reported for perinatal death or severe morbidity. There were two fetal deaths in the no tocolytic control group (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.55; low-quality evidence). The rate of caesarean delivery was not reported. There were two babies with Apgar scores below seven in the control group and none in the hexoprenaline group (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.57; 35 women; low-quality evidence).\nSubcutaneous terbutaline versus IV magnesium sulphate (1 study, 46 women)\nNo data were reported for perinatal death, severe morbidity or fetal or neonatal mortality. The decision for caesarean section was an inclusion criterion, so we could not assess this. The effects on abnormal fetal heart trace are uncertain (very low-quality evidence).\nSubcutaneous terbutaline with continuation of oxytocic infusion versus cessation of oxytocic infusion without tocolytic agent (1 study, 28 women)\nNo data were reported for perinatal death, severe morbidity or fetal or neonatal mortality. There may be little or no difference in the rates of caesarean delivery in the subcutaneous terbutaline (8/15) and control groups (4/13) (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.45; low-quality evidence). There were no cases of Apgar scores below seven or abnormal fetal heart trace.\nSubcutaneous terbutaline versus no tocolytic agent, whilst awaiting emergency delivery (1 study, 20 women)\nNo data were reported for perinatal death or severe morbidity. There were no fetal or neonatal mortalities. The decision for caesarean section was an inclusion criterion, so we could not assess this. There were two babies with Apgar scores below seven in the control group and none in the terbutaline group (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.08; low-quality evidence).\nIV terbutaline versus IV nitroglycerin (1 study, 110 women)\nNo data were reported for perinatal death or severe morbidity or fetal or neonatal mortality. There may be little or no difference in the rates of caesarean delivery between the IV terbutaline (30/57) and control groups (29/53) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.36; low-quality evidence). There were no cases of Apgar scores below seven.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of tocolytics for uterine tachysystole or suspected fetal distress during labour. The clinical significance for some of the improvements in measures of fetal well-being with tocolytics is unclear. The sample sizes were too small to detect effects on neonatal morbidity, mortality or serious adverse effects. The majority of studies are from high-income countries in facilities with access to caesarean section, which may limit the generalisability of the results to lower-resource settings, or settings where caesarean section is not available.\nFurther well-designed and adequately powered RCTs are required to evaluate clinically relevant indicators of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.\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": "Excessively strong or frequent contractions can occur in any labour, though are more common when women have been given medications to start off or increase contractions. In some cases, excessive contractions can be a sign of complications such as placental abruption or obstructed labour. Excessive contractions may reduce the amount of oxygen reaching the unborn baby.\n'Tocolysis' is when women are given medication to reduce the strength or frequency of contractions, or both. Tocolysis may improve blood flow and therefore improve the baby's well-being. This review aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of tocolysis when the uterus (womb) is contracting too quickly (more than 5 contractions in 2 consecutive 10-minute periods) or when the baby is showing signs of distress during labour, as detected by monitoring its heart rate.\nThis new Cochrane Review supersedes an earlier Cochrane Review with the same name." } ]
query-laysum	22173	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPhenylketonuria is an inherited disease for which the main treatment is the dietary restriction of the amino acid phenylalanine. The diet has to be initiated in the neonatal period to prevent or reduce mental handicap. However, the diet is very restrictive and unpalatable and can be difficult to follow. A deficiency of the amino acid tyrosine has been suggested as a cause of some of the neuropsychological problems exhibited in phenylketonuria. Therefore, this review aims to assess the efficacy of tyrosine supplementation for phenylketonuria. This is an update of previously published versions of this review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of tyrosine supplementation alongside or instead of a phenylalanine-restricted diet for people with phenylketonuria, who commenced on diet at diagnosis and either continued on the diet or relaxed the diet later in life. To assess the evidence that tyrosine supplementation alongside, or instead of a phenylalanine-restricted diet improves intelligence, neuropsychological performance, growth and nutritional status, mortality rate and quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register which is comprised of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Additional studies were identified from handsearches of the Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease (from inception in 1978 to 1998). The manufacturers of prescribable dietary products used in the treatment of phenylketonuria were also contacted for further references.\nDate of the most recent search of the Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register: 07 December 2020.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised trials investigating the use of tyrosine supplementation versus placebo in people with phenylketonuria in addition to, or instead of, a phenylalanine-restricted diet. People treated for maternal phenylketonuria were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed the trial eligibility, methodological quality and extracted the data.\nMain results\nSix trials were found, of which three trials reporting the results of a total of 56 participants, were suitable for inclusion in the review. The blood tyrosine concentrations were significantly higher in the participants receiving tyrosine supplements than those in the placebo group, mean difference 23.46 (95% confidence interval 12.87 to 34.05). No significant differences were found between any of the other outcomes measured. The trials were assessed as having a low to moderate risk of bias across several domains.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFrom the available evidence no recommendations can be made about whether tyrosine supplementation should be introduced into routine clinical practice. Further randomised controlled studies are required to provide more evidence. However, given this is not an active area of research, we have no plans to update this review in the future.\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 three trials with 56 people with phenylketonuria aged between six and 28 years of age. Trials compared adding tyrosine or placebo (a substance which contains no medication) to a phenylalanine-restricted diet and people were selected for one treatment or the other randomly. The length of the treatment and control arms were short in all three trials and some of the outcomes considered important in this review were not measured." } ]
query-laysum	22174	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHealth services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants.\nThis review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of ‘working in partnership’ interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE ‘Summary of findings’ tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3).\nThe effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table.\nWe are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use.\nOverall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of our review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The studies provided insufficient evidence to determine if working in partnership had any effects compared to usual practice or wider strategies with no working in partnership.\nNo studies investigated:\n- impacts on the extent to which changes to health services reflected service users’ priorities, or\n- the resources needed to make or act on decisions about health services.\nFew studies investigated:\n- impacts on changes to health services;\n- users’ ratings of health services;\n- health service use; and\n- adverse events.\nThe few studies that did investigate these outcomes either did not report usable information or produced findings in which we have very little confidence. These studies were small, used methods likely to introduce errors in their results and focused on specific settings or populations. Their results are unlikely to reflect the results of all the studies that have been conducted in this area, some of which have not made their results public yet." } ]
query-laysum	22175	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the airways and is common in both adults and children. It is characterised by symptoms including wheeze, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough. People with asthma may be helped to manage their condition through shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves at least two participants (the medical practitioner and the patient) and mutual sharing of information, including the patient's values and preferences, to build consensus about favoured treatment that culminates in an agreed action. Effective self-management is particularly important for people with asthma, and SDM may improve clinical outcomes and quality of life by educating patients and empowering them to be actively involved in their own health.\nObjectives\nTo assess benefits and potential harms of shared decision-making for adults and children with asthma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified in several sources including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries and checked the reference lists of included studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies of individual or cluster parallel randomised controlled design conducted to compare an SDM intervention for adults and children with asthma versus a control intervention. We included studies available as full-text reports, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data, and we placed no restrictions on place, date, or language of publication. We included interventions targeting healthcare professionals or patients, their families or care-givers, or both. We included studies that compared the intervention versus usual care or a minimal control intervention, and those that compared an SDM intervention against another active intervention. We excluded studies of interventions that involved multiple components other than the SDM intervention unless the control group also received these interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened searches, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life, patient/parent satisfaction, and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations of asthma, asthma control, acceptability/feasibility from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and all adverse events. We graded and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.\nWe were unable to pool any of the extracted outcome data owing to clinical and methodological heterogeneity but presented findings in forest plots when possible. We narratively described skewed data.\nMain results\nWe included four studies that compared SDM versus control and included a total of 1342 participants. Three studies recruited children with asthma and their care-givers, and one recruited adults with asthma. Three studies took place in the United States, and one in the Netherlands. Trial duration was between 6 and 24 months. One trial delivered the SDM intervention to the medical practitioner, and three trials delivered the SDM intervention directly to the participant. Two paediatric studies involved use of an online portal, followed by face-to-face consultations. One study delivered an SDM intervention or a clinical decision-making intervention through a mixture of face-to-face consultations and telephone calls. The final study randomised paediatric general practice physicians to receive a seminar programme promoting application of SDM principles. All trials were open-label, although one study, which delivered the intervention to physicians, stated that participants were unaware of their physicians' involvement in the trial. We had concerns about selection and attrition bias and selective reporting, and we noted that one study substantially under-recruited participants. The four included studies used different approaches to measure fidelity/intervention adherence and to report study findings.\nOne study involving adults with poorly controlled asthma reported improved quality of life (QOL) for the SDM group compared with the control group, using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) for assessment (mean difference (MD) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.91), but two other trials did not identify a benefit. Patient/parent satisfaction with the performance of paediatricians was greater in the SDM group in one trial involving children. Medication adherence was better in the SDM group in two studies - one involving adults and one involving children (all medication adherence: MD 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31; mean number of controlled medication prescriptions over 26 weeks: 1.1 in the SDM group (n = 26) and 0.7 in the control group (n = 27)). In one study, asthma-related visit rates were lower in the SDM group than in the usual care group (1.0/y vs 1.4/y; P = 0.016), but two other studies did not report a difference in exacerbations nor in prescriptions for short courses of oral steroids. Finally, one study described better odds of reporting no asthma problems in the SDM group than in the usual care group (odds ratio (OR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.87), although two other studies reporting asthma control did not identify a benefit with SDM. We found no information about acceptability of the intervention to the healthcare professional and no information on adverse events. Overall, our confidence in study results ranged from very low to moderate, and we downgraded outcomes owing to risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSubstantial differences between the four included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that we cannot provide meaningful overall conclusions. Individual studies demonstrated some benefits of SDM over control, in terms of quality of life; patient and parent satisfaction; adherence to prescribed medication; reduction in asthma-related healthcare visits; and improved asthma control. Our confidence in the findings of these individual studies ranges from moderate to very low, and it is important to note that studies did not measure or report adverse events.\nFuture trials should be adequately powered and of sufficient duration to detect differences in patient-important outcomes such as exacerbations and hospitalisations. Use of core asthma outcomes and validated scales when possible would facilitate future meta-analysis. Studies conducted in lower-income settings and including an economic evaluation would be of interest. Investigators should systematically record adverse events, even if none are anticipated. Studies identified to date have not included adolescents; future trials should consider their inclusion. Measuring and reporting of intervention fidelity is also recommended.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background to the question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Asthma is a long-term disease that is common in adults and children. People with asthma often wheeze, cough, and have difficulty breathing. Shared decision-making means fully involving individuals with asthma in decisions about their care. It usually involves the patient and his or her doctor or nurse, and key features include sharing information to help individuals with asthma make the best decisions for themselves. By including individuals with asthma in the decision-making process, it is hoped that their asthma will be better controlled and will cause them fewer problems." } ]
query-laysum	22176	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe effectiveness of interventions to increase influenza vaccination uptake in people aged 60 years and older varies by country and participant characteristics. This review updates versions published in 2010 and 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess access, provider, system, and societal interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years and older in the community.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ERIC for this update, as well as WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies to 7 December 2017. We also searched reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of interventions to increase influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years or older in the community.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 3 new RCTs for this update (total 61 RCTs; 1,055,337 participants). Trials involved people aged 60 years and older living in the community in high-income countries. Heterogeneity limited some meta-analyses. We assessed studies as at low risk of bias for randomisation (38%), allocation concealment (11%), blinding (44%), and selective reporting (100%). Half (51%) had missing data. We assessed the evidence as low-quality. We identified three levels of intervention intensity: low (e.g. postcards), medium (e.g. personalised phone calls), and high (e.g. home visits, facilitators).\nIncreasing community demand (12 strategies, 41 trials, 53 study arms, 767,460 participants)\nOne successful intervention that could be meta-analysed was client reminders or recalls by letter plus leaflet or postcard compared to reminder (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.15; 3 studies; 64,200 participants). Successful interventions tested by single studies were patient outreach by retired teachers (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.79 to 6.22); invitations by clinic receptionists (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76); nurses or pharmacists educating and nurses vaccinating patients (OR 152.95, 95% CI 9.39 to 2490.67); medical students counselling patients (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.35); and multiple recall questionnaires (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24).\nSome interventions could not be meta-analysed due to significant heterogeneity: 17 studies tested simple reminders (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in 11 trials implying all 11 interventions increased vaccination rates); 16 tested personalised reminders (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in 12 trials implying all 12 interventions increased vaccination rates ); 2 investigated customised compared to form letters (the 95% CI was above unity in both trials implying both interventions increased vaccination rates); and 4 studies examined the impact of health risk appraisals (the 95% CI was above unity in all 4 trials implying all 4 interventions increased vaccination rates). One study of a lottery for free groceries was not effective.\nEnhancing vaccination access (6 strategies, 8 trials, 10 arms, 9353 participants)\nWe meta-analysed results from 2 studies of home visits (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61), and 2 studies that tested free vaccine compared to patient payment for vaccine (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82). We were unable to conduct meta-analyses of 2 studies of home visits by nurses plus a physician care plan (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in both trials implying both interventions increased vaccination rates) and 2 studies of free vaccine compared to no intervention (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in both trials implying both interventions increased vaccination rates). One study of group visits (OR 27.2, 95% CI 1.60 to 463.3) was effective, and 1 study of home visits compared to safety interventions was not.\nProvider- or system-based interventions (11 strategies, 15 trials, 17 arms, 278,524 participants)\nOne successful intervention that could be meta-analysed focused on payments to physicians (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.77). Successful interventions tested by individual studies were: reminding physicians to vaccinate all patients (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.99); posters in clinics presenting vaccination rates and encouraging competition between doctors (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.22); and chart reviews and benchmarking to the rates achieved by the top 10% of physicians (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.37 to 4.97).\nWe were unable to meta-analyse 4 studies that looked at physician reminders (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in 3 trials implying all 3 interventions increased vaccination rates) and 3 studies of facilitator encouragement of vaccination (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in 2 trials implying both interventions increased vaccination rates). Interventions that were not effective were: comparing letters on discharge from hospital to letters to general practitioners; posters plus postcards versus posters alone; educational reminders, academic detailing, and peer comparisons compared to mailed educational materials; educational outreach plus feedback to teams versus written feedback; and an intervention to increase staff vaccination rates.\nInterventions at the societal level\nNo studies reported on societal-level interventions.\nStudy funding sources\nStudies were funded by government health organisations (n = 33), foundations (n = 9), organisations that provided healthcare services in the studies (n = 3), and a pharmaceutical company offering free vaccines (n = 1). Fifteen studies did not report study funding sources.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified interventions that demonstrated significant positive effects of low (postcards), medium (personalised phone calls), and high (home visits, facilitators) intensity that increase community demand for vaccination, enhance access, and improve provider/system response. The overall GRADE assessment of the evidence was moderate quality. Conclusions are unchanged from the 2014 review.\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": "Increasing community demand for vaccination (12 strategies, 41 trials, 767,460 participants)\nEffective interventions consisted of reminders/recalls using letters and leaflets, and nurses or pharmacists educating and nurses vaccinating patients. Individual effective studies consisted of client outreach by retired teachers, receptionists, nurses, and medical students.\nIt was not possible to combine some interventions for analysis as they were too varied: 17 studies of simple reminders (11 with significant results); 16 studies of personalised reminders (12 with significant results); two studies of customised letters versus form letters (both with significant results); and four studies of health risk appraisals plus vaccination recommendations (all with significant results).\nImproving vaccination access (6 strategies, 8 trials, 9353 participants)\nEffective interventions consisted of home visits, client group clinic visits, and free vaccine offers.\nImproving provision by providers or the healthcare system (11 strategies, 15 trials, 278,524 participants)\nEffective interventions that could be combined for analysis included physician payment, physician reminders, clinic posters encouraging physician competition, and chart reviews plus benchmarking to rates of the top 10% of physicians. We could not analyse some groups of interventions: physician reminders (four studies, two of which were effective) and facilitator vaccination encouragement (three studies, two of which were effective).\nIndividual studies that were not effective consisted of posters plus postcards versus posters alone, educational reminders to physicians compared to mailed educational materials, educational outreach plus feedback to teams versus written feedback, and increasing staff vaccination rates.\nNo studies measured if interventions reduced illness or hospital admissions or reported societal-level interventions." } ]
query-laysum	22177	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm birth interferes with brain maturation, and subsequent clinical events and interventions may have additional deleterious effects. Music as therapy is offered increasingly in neonatal intensive care units aiming to improve health outcomes and quality of life for both preterm infants and the well-being of their parents. Systematic reviews of mixed methodological quality have demonstrated ambiguous results for the efficacy of various types of auditory stimulation of preterm infants. A more comprehensive and rigorous systematic review is needed to address controversies arising from apparently conflicting studies and reviews.\nObjectives\nWe assessed the overall efficacy of music and vocal interventions for physiological and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation) compared to standard care. In addition, we aimed to determine specific effects of various interventions for physiological, anthropometric, social-emotional, neurodevelopmental short- and long-term outcomes in the infants, parental well-being, and bonding.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, RILM Abstracts, and ERIC in November 2021; and Proquest Dissertations in February 2019. We searched the reference lists of related systematic reviews, and of studies selected for inclusion and clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel, and cluster-randomised controlled trials with preterm infants < 37 weeks` gestation during hospitalisation, and parents when they were involved in the intervention. Interventions were any music or vocal stimulation provided live or via a recording by a music therapist, a parent, or a healthcare professional compared to standard care. The intervention duration was greater than five minutes and needed to occur more than three times.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently extracted data. We analysed the treatment effects of the individual trials using RevMan Web using a fixed-effects model to combine the data. Where possible, we presented results in meta-analyses using mean differences with 95% CI. We performed heterogeneity tests. When the I2 statistic was higher than 50%, we assessed the source of the heterogeneity by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 25 trials recruiting 1532 infants and 691 parents (21 parallel-group RCTs, four cross-over RCTs). The infants gestational age at birth varied from 23 to 36 weeks, taking place in NICUs (level 1 to 3) around the world. Within the trials, the intervention varied widely in type, delivery, frequency, and duration. Music and voice were mainly characterised by calm, soft, musical parameters in lullaby style, often integrating the sung mother's voice live or recorded, defined as music therapy or music medicine. The general risk of bias in the included studies varied from low to high risk of bias.\nMusic and vocal interventions compared to standard care\nMusic/vocal interventions do not increase oxygen saturation in the infants during the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.13, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.59; P = 0.59; 958 infants, 10 studies; high-certainty evidence). Music and voice probably do not increase oxygen saturation post-intervention either (MD 0.63, 95% CI -0.01 to 1.26; P = 0.05; 800 infants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention may not increase infant development (Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID)) with the cognitive composition score (MD 0.35, 95% CI -4.85 to 5.55; P = 0.90; 69 infants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); the motor composition score (MD -0.17, 95% CI -5.45 to 5.11; P = 0.95; 69 infants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and the language composition score (MD 0.38, 95% CI -5.45 to 6.21; P = 0.90; 69 infants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Music therapy may not reduce parental state-trait anxiety (MD -1.12, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.96; P = 0.29; 97 parents, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nThe intervention probably does not reduce respiratory rate during the intervention (MD 0.42, 95% CI -1.05 to 1.90; P = 0.57; 750 infants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and post-intervention (MD 0.51, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.58; P = 0.63; 636 infants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, music/vocal interventions probably reduce heart rates in preterm infants during the intervention (MD -1.38, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.12; P = 0.03; 1014 infants; 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). This beneficial effect was even stronger after the intervention. Music/vocal interventions reduce heart rate post-intervention (MD -3.80, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.55; P < 0.00001; 903 infants, 9 studies; high-certainty evidence) with wide CIs ranging from medium to large beneficial effects. Music therapy may not reduce postnatal depression (MD 0.50, 95% CI -1.80 to 2.81; P = 0.67; 67 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of music therapy on parental state anxiety (MD -0.15, 95% CI -2.72 to 2.41; P = 0.91; 87 parents, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about any further effects regarding all other secondary short- and long-term outcomes on the infants, parental well-being, and bonding/attachment. Two studies evaluated adverse effects as an explicit outcome of interest and reported no adverse effects from music and voice.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMusic/vocal interventions do not increase oxygen saturation during and probably not after the intervention compared to standard care. The evidence suggests that music and voice do not increase infant development (BSID) or reduce parental state-trait anxiety. The intervention probably does not reduce respiratory rate in preterm infants. However, music/vocal interventions probably reduce heart rates in preterm infants during the intervention, and this beneficial effect is even stronger after the intervention, demonstrating that music/vocal interventions reduce heart rates in preterm infants post-intervention. We found no reports of adverse effects from music and voice. Due to low-certainty evidence for all other outcomes, we could not draw any further conclusions regarding overall efficacy nor the possible impact of different intervention types, frequencies, or durations. Further research with more power, fewer risks of bias, and more sensitive and clinically relevant outcomes are needed.\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 25 studies that involved 1532 preterm infants and 691 parents. The biggest study was in 272, and the smallest was in 17 preterm infants. Within the studies from around the world, mainly the immediate effect of music and voice was examined in the moments of intervention and minutes post-intervention, whereas two studies wanted to know if there would be a beneficial effect on long-term development at two years. Most studies were funded by University/Health Department/Hospital research funds and local medical/health foundations. The reported music and vocal interventions varied widely in type, delivery, frequency, and duration. They were mainly characterised by calm, soft, musical parameters in lullaby style, often integrating the mother's voice live or recorded, defined as music therapy when provided by a music therapist within a therapeutic relationship or music medicine when delivered as \"medicine\" by medical and healthcare professionals." } ]
query-laysum	22178	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nKeratoconus is the most common corneal dystrophy. It can cause loss of uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity through ectasia (thinning) of the central or paracentral cornea, irregular corneal scarring, or corneal perforation. Disease onset usually occurs in the second to fourth decade of life, periods of peak educational attainment or career development. The condition is lifelong and sight-threatening.\nCorneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) using ultraviolet A (UVA) light applied to the cornea is the only treatment that has been shown to slow progression of disease. The original, more widely known technique involves application of UVA light to de-epithelialized cornea, to which a photosensitizer (riboflavin) is added topically throughout the irradiation process.\nTransepithelial CXL is a recently advocated alternative to the standard CXL procedure, in that the epithelium is kept intact during CXL. Retention of the epithelium offers the putative advantages of faster healing, less patient discomfort, faster visual rehabilitation, and less risk of corneal haze.\nObjectives\nTo assess the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of transepithelial CXL compared with epithelium-off CXL for progressive keratoconus.\nSearch methods\nTo identify potentially eligible studies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not impose any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 January 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which transepithelial CXL had been compared with epithelium-off CXL in participants with progressive keratoconus.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies with 661 eyes of 567 participants enrolled; 13 to 119 participants were enrolled per study. Seven studies were conducted in Europe, three in the Middle East, and one each in India, Russia, and Turkey. Seven studies were parallel-group RCTs, one study was an RCT with a paired-eyes design, and five studies were RCTs in which both eyes of some or all participants were assigned to the same intervention.\nEleven studies compared transepithelial CXL with epithelium-off CXL in participants with progressive keratoconus. There was no evidence of an important difference between intervention groups in maximum keratometry (denoted 'maximum K' or 'Kmax'; also known as steepest keratometry measurement) at 12 months or later (mean difference (MD) 0.99 diopters (D), 95% CI −0.11 to 2.09; 5 studies; 177 eyes; I2 = 41%; very low certainty evidence). Few studies described other outcomes of interest. The evidence is very uncertain that epithelium-off CXL may have a small (data from two studies were not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 92%)) or no effect on stabilization of progressive keratoconus compared with transepithelial CXL; comparison of the estimated proportions of eyes with decreases or increases of 2 or more diopters in maximum K at 12 months from one study with 61 eyes was RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.12) and RR (non-event) 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.00), respectively (very low certainty). We did not estimate an overall effect on corrected-distance visual acuity (CDVA) because substantial heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 70%). No study evaluated CDVA gain or loss of 10 or more letters on a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) chart. Transepithelial CXL may result in little to no difference in CDVA at 12 months or beyond. Four studies reported that either no adverse events or no serious adverse events had been observed. Another study noted no change in endothelial cell count after either procedure. Moderate certainty evidence from 4 studies (221 eyes) found that epithelium-off CXL resulted in a slight increase in corneal haze or scarring when compared to transepithelial CXL (RR (non-event) 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14).\nThree studies, one of which had three arms, compared outcomes among participants assigned to transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis versus those assigned to epithelium-off CXL. No conclusive evidence was found for either keratometry or visual acuity outcomes at 12 months or later after surgery. Low certainty evidence suggests that transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis results in no difference in logMAR CDVA (MD 0.00 letter, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.04; 2 studies; 51 eyes). Only one study examined gain or loss of 10 or more logMAR letters. In terms of adverse events, one case of subepithelial infiltrate was reported after transepithelial CXL with iontophoresis, whereas two cases of faint corneal scars and four cases of permanent haze were observed after epithelium-off CXL. Vogt's striae were found in one eye after each intervention. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison due to imprecision of estimates for all outcomes and risk of bias in the studies from which data have been reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBecause of lack of precision, frequent indeterminate risk of bias due to inadequate reporting, and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported among studies in this systematic review, it remains unknown whether transepithelial CXL, or any other approach, may confer an advantage over epithelium-off CXL for patients with progressive keratoconus with respect to further progression of keratoconus, visual acuity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Arrest of the progression of keratoconus should be the primary outcome of interest in future trials of CXL, particularly when comparing the effectiveness of different approaches to CXL. Furthermore, methods of assessing and defining progressive keratoconus should be standardized. Trials with longer follow-up are required in order to assure that outcomes are measured after corneal wound-healing and stabilization of keratoconus. In addition, perioperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care should be standardized to permit meaningful comparisons of CXL methods. Methods to increase penetration of riboflavin through intact epithelium as well as delivery of increased dose of UVA may be needed to improve outcomes. PROs should be measured and reported. The visual significance of adverse outcomes, such as corneal haze, should be assessed and correlated with other outcomes, including PROs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How-up-to date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence in this Cochrane Review is current to January 2020." } ]
query-laysum	22179	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the review originally published in 2011 and first updated in 2015.\nIn most people with low-grade gliomas (LGG), the primary treatment regimen remains a combination of surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. However, the optimal timing of radiotherapy is controversial. It is unclear whether to use radiotherapy in the early postoperative period, or whether radiotherapy should be delayed until tumour progression occurs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of early postoperative radiotherapy versus radiotherapy delayed until tumour progression for low-grade intracranial gliomas in people who had initial biopsy or surgical resection.\nSearch methods\nOriginal searches were run up to September 2014. An updated literature search from September 2014 through November 2019 was performed on the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 11), MEDLINE via Ovid (September 2014 to November week 2 2019), and Embase via Ovid (September 2014 to 2019 week 46) to identify trials for inclusion in this Cochrane review update.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early versus delayed radiotherapy following biopsy or surgical resection for the treatment of people with newly diagnosed intracranial LGG (astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, mixed oligoastrocytoma, astroblastoma, xanthoastrocytoma, or ganglioglioma). Radiotherapy may include conformal external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with linear accelerator or cobalt-60 sources, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data. We resolved any differences between review authors by discussion. Adverse effects were also extracted from the study report. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model with inverse variance weighting.\nMain results\nWe included one large, multi-institutional, prospective RCT, involving 311 participants; the risk of bias in this study was unclear. This study found that early postoperative radiotherapy was associated with an increase in time to progression compared to observation (and delayed radiotherapy upon disease progression) for people with LGG but did not significantly improve overall survival (OS). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.3 years in the early radiotherapy group and 3.4 years in the delayed radiotherapy group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.77; P < 0.0001; 311 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). The median OS in the early radiotherapy group was 7.4 years, while the delayed radiotherapy group experienced a median overall survival of 7.2 years (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.33; P = 0.872; 311 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). The total dose of radiotherapy given was 54 Gy; five fractions of 1.8 Gy per week were given for six weeks. Adverse effects following radiotherapy consisted of skin reactions, otitis media, mild headache, nausea, and vomiting. Rescue therapy was provided to 65% of the participants randomised to delayed radiotherapy. People in both cohorts who were free from tumour progression showed no differences in cognitive deficit, focal deficit, performance status, and headache after one year. However, participants randomised to the early radiotherapy group experienced significantly fewer seizures than participants in the delayed postoperative radiotherapy group at one year (25% versus 41%, P = 0.0329, respectively).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the high risk of bias in the included study, the results of this analysis must be interpreted with caution. Early radiation therapy was associated with the following adverse effects: skin reactions, otitis media, mild headache, nausea, and vomiting. People with LGG who underwent early radiotherapy showed an increase in time to progression compared with people who were observed and had radiotherapy at the time of progression. There was no significant difference in overall survival between people who had early versus delayed radiotherapy; however, this finding may be due to the effectiveness of rescue therapy with radiation in the control arm. People who underwent early radiation had better seizure control at one year than people who underwent delayed radiation. There were no cases of radiation-induced malignant transformation of LGG. However, it remained unclear whether there were differences in memory, executive function, cognitive function, or quality of life between the two groups since these measures were not evaluated.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The issue\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Low-grade gliomas (LGG) are brain tumours that predominantly affect young adults. They grow at slower rates and are typically associated with a favourable prognosis compared with high-grade gliomas. One of the most common presenting symptoms of people with LGG are seizures. Although, there are no definitive guidelines on the management of LGGs, most people with LGGs are treated with a combination of surgery followed by radiotherapy. However, it is unclear whether to use radiotherapy in the early postoperative period, or to delay until the disease progresses." } ]
query-laysum	22180	[ { "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: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Acne scars may have a damaging effect on a person's physical, mental, and social well-being. Although a wide range of treatments are used, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on which are the most effective for acne scars.\nThis review aimed to better inform patients and healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods to manage this problem. We have examined treatments for atrophic scars (depressions in the skin surface) and hypertrophic scars (lumpy scars that stick out from the skin surface) in acne but have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring. Our main outcomes of interest were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study." } ]
query-laysum	22181	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis is the most common life-limiting autosomal recessive genetic disorder in white populations. Distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) is an important morbidity in cystic fibrosis. It is the result of the accumulation of viscid faecal material within the bowel which combines with thick, sticky mucus produced in the intestines of people with cystic fibrosis. The intestine may be completely blocked (complete DIOS) or only partially blocked (incomplete DIOS). Once a diagnosis of DIOS has been made, the goal of therapy is to relieve the acute complete or incomplete faecal obstruction and ultimately prevent the need for surgical intervention.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different treatment regimens for the treatment of DIOS (complete and incomplete) in children and adults 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. Date of search: 09 September 2021.\nWe also searched online trial registries. Date of last search: 12 October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cross-over trials (to be judged on an individual basis)) comparing the use of laxative agents or surgery for treating DIOS in children, young people and adults with cystic fibrosis to each other, placebo or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed for risk of bias. The authors assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nThere was one trial with 20 participants (16 females) included in the review. The mean age of participants was 13.1 years. The trial was a double-blinded, randomised cross-over trial which had a duration of 12 months in total and compared high-dose and low-dose pancreatic enzyme therapy. As only the abstract of the trial was available, the overall risk of bias was judged to be unclear. The trial did not address either of our primary outcomes (time until resolution of DIOS and treatment failure rate), but reported episodes of acute DIOS, presence of abdominal mass and abdominal pain. There were no numerical data available for these outcomes, but the authors stated that there was no difference between treatment with high-dose or low-dose pancreatic enzymes. The overall certainty of the evidence was found to be very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a clear lack of evidence for the treatment of DIOS in people with cystic fibrosis. The included abstract did not address our primary outcome measures and did not provide numerical data for the two secondary outcomes it did address. Therefore, we cannot justify the use of high-dose pancreatic enzymes for treating DIOS, nor can we comment on the efficacy and safety of other laxative agents. From our findings, it is clear that more randomised controlled trials need to be conducted in this area.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found the overall certainty of the evidence to be very low. The trial itself was only published as an abstract from a conference which did not include numerical data and it was not published as a full report. This meant that we do not know many details about the trial. We thought that the overall risk of bias was unclear, as the trial authors did not describe how participants were put into the treatment groups, whether any participants dropped out or whether the planned outcomes were the same as the reported outcomes. The trial also had a very small number of participants and a limited age range, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the relevance of the treatment for all people with cystic fibrosis." } ]
query-laysum	22182	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHistorically, whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) has been the main treatment for brain metastases. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivers high-dose focused radiation and is being increasingly utilized to treat brain metastases. The benefit of adding SRS to WBRT is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 9, 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of WBRT plus SRS versus WBRT alone in the treatment of adults with brain metastases.\nSearch methods\nFor the original review, in 2009 we searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CancerLit in order to identify trials for inclusion in this review. For the first update the searches were updated in May 2012.\nFor this update, in May 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in order to identify trials for inclusion in the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe restricted the review to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared use of WBRT plus SRS versus WBRT alone for upfront treatment of adults with newly diagnosed metastases (single or multiple) in the brain resulting from any primary, extracranial cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the generic inverse variance method, random-effects model in Review Manager 5 for the meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified three studies and one abstract for inclusion but we could only include two studies, with a total of 358 participants in a meta-analysis. This found no difference in overall survival (OS) between the WBRT plus SRS and WBRT alone groups (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.02; 2 studies, 358 participants; moderate-quality evidence). For participants with one brain metastasis median survival was significantly longer in the WBRT plus SRS group (6.5 months) versus WBRT group (4.9 months; P = 0.04). Participants in the WBRT plus SRS group had decreased local failure compared to participants who received WBRT alone (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.52; 2 studies, 129 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Furthermore, we observed an improvement in performance status scores and decrease in steroid use in the WBRT plus SRS group (risk ratio (RR) 0.64 CI 0.42 to 0.97; 1 study, 118 participants; low-quality evidence). Unchanged or improved Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) at six months was seen in 43% of participants in the combined therapy group versus only 28% in the WBRT-alone group (RR 0.78 CI 0.61 to 1.00; P value = 0.05; 1 study, 118 participants; low-quality evidence). Overall, risk of bias in the included studies was unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince the last version of this review we have identified one new study that met the inclusion criteria. However, due to a lack of data from this study we were not able to include it in a meta-analysis. Given the unclear risk of bias in the included studies, the results of this analysis have to be interpreted with caution. In our analysis of all included participants, SRS plus WBRT did not show a survival benefit over WBRT alone. However, performance status and local control were significantly better in the SRS plus WBRT group. Furthermore, significantly longer OS was reported in the combined treatment group for recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) Class I patients as well as patients with single metastasis. Most of our outcomes of interest were graded as moderate-quality evidence according to the GRADE criteria and the risk of bias in the majority of included studies was mostly unclear.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The issue\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The benefit of adding stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), which is non-surgical targeted radiation therapy, to whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), where radiation is given to the whole brain when tumours cannot be removed by surgery, for people with brain metastases is unclear." } ]
query-laysum	22183	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiac surgery is performed worldwide. Most types of cardiac surgery are performed using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Cardiac surgery performed with CPB is associated with morbidities. CPB needs an extracorporeal circulation that replaces the heart and lungs, and performs circulation, ventilation, and oxygenation of the blood. The lower limit of mean blood pressure to maintain blood flow to vital organs increases in people with chronic hypertension. Because people undergoing cardiac surgery commonly have chronic hypertension, we hypothesised that maintaining a relatively high blood pressure improves desirable outcomes among the people undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of higher versus lower blood pressure targets during cardiac surgery with CPB.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search of databases was November 2021 and trials registries in January 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a higher blood pressure target (mean arterial pressure 65 mmHg or greater) with a lower blood pressure target (mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg) in adults undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were 1. acute kidney injury, 2. cognitive deterioration, and 3. all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 4. quality of life, 5. acute ischaemic stroke, 6. haemorrhagic stroke, 7. length of hospital stay, 8. renal replacement therapy, 9. delirium, 10. perioperative transfusion of blood products, and 11. perioperative myocardial infarction. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs with 737 people compared a higher blood pressure target with a lower blood pressure target during cardiac surgery with CPB. A high blood pressure target may result in little to no difference in acute kidney injury (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 2.08; I² = 72%; 2 studies, 487 participants; low-certainty evidence), cognitive deterioration (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.50; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.90; I² = 49%; 3 studies, 737 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported haemorrhagic stroke. Although a high blood pressure target may increase the length of hospital stay slightly, we found no differences between a higher and a lower blood pressure target for the other secondary outcomes.\nWe also identified one ongoing RCT which is comparing a higher versus a lower blood pressure target among the people who undergo cardiac surgery with CPB.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA high blood pressure target may result in little to no difference in patient outcomes including acute kidney injury and mortality. Given the wide CIs, further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of a higher blood pressure target among those who undergo cardiac surgery with CPB.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched medical databases for clinical trials comparing high versus low blood pressure targets during heart surgery while on CPB." } ]
query-laysum	22184	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is effective in term infants with hypoxic respiratory failure. The pathophysiology of respiratory failure and the potential risks of iNO differ substantially in preterm infants, necessitating specific study in this population.\nObjectives\nTo determine effects of treatment with inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) on death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) or other serious brain injury and on adverse long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm newborn infants with hypoxic respiratory failure.\nOwing to substantial variation in study eligibility criteria, which decreases the utility of an overall analysis, we divided participants post hoc into three groups: (1) infants treated over the first three days of life because of defects in oxygenation, (2) preterm infants with evidence of pulmonary disease treated routinely with iNO and (3) infants treated later (after three days of age) because of elevated risk of BPD.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Healthstar and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library through January 2016. We also searched the abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies.\nSelection criteria\nEligible for inclusion were randomised and quasi-randomised studies in preterm infants with respiratory disease that compared effects of iNO gas versus control, with or without placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe found 17 randomised controlled trials of iNO therapy in preterm infants. We grouped these trials post hoc into three categories on the basis of entry criteria: treatment during the first three days of life for impaired oxygenation, routine use in preterm babies along with respiratory support and later treatment for infants at increased risk for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). We performed no overall analyses.\nEight trials providing early rescue treatment for infants on the basis of oxygenation criteria demonstrated no significant effect of iNO on mortality or BPD (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.01; 958 infants). Four studies examining routine use of iNO in infants with pulmonary disease reported no significant reduction in death or BPD (typical RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02; 1924 infants), although this small effect approached significance. Later treatment with iNO based on risk of BPD (three trials) revealed no significant benefit for this outcome in analyses of summary data (typical RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 1075 infants).\nInvestigators found no clear effect of iNO on the frequency of all grades of IVH nor severe IVH. Early rescue treatment was associated with a non-significant 20% increase in severe IVH.\nWe found no effect on the incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment.\nAuthors' conclusions\niNO does not appear to be effective as rescue therapy for the very ill preterm infant. Early routine use of iNO in preterm infants with respiratory disease does not prevent serious brain injury or improve survival without BPD. Later use of iNO to prevent BPD could be effective, but current 95% confidence intervals include no effect; the effect size is likely small (RR 0.92) and requires further study.\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": "Review authors found 17 randomised controlled trials of iNO in the preterm newborn through searches updated until January 2016. These trials studied preterm babies with very different baseline characteristics; therefore, we decided to divide them into three groups: (1) trials of babies treated in the first few days of life with severe lung disease, (2) studies providing treatment after the first few days of life to babies who were at increased risk of chronic lung disease and (3) trials providing routine early treatment for babies who experienced respiratory distress." } ]
query-laysum	22185	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with severe mental illness are twice as likely to develop type 2 diabetes as those without severe mental illness. Treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes recommend that structured education should be integrated into routine care and should be offered to all. However, for people with severe mental illness, physical health may be a low priority, and motivation to change may be limited. These additional challenges mean that the findings reported in previous systematic reviews of diabetes self management interventions may not be generalised to those with severe mental illness, and that tailored approaches to effective diabetes education may be required for this population.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of diabetes self management interventions specifically tailored for people with type 2 diabetes and severe mental illness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, ClinicalTrials.gov and grey literature. The date of the last search of all databases was 07 March 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of diabetes self management interventions for people with type 2 diabetes and severe mental illness.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, extracted data and conducted the risk of bias assessment. We used a taxonomy of behaviour change techniques and the framework for behaviour change theory to describe the theoretical basis of the interventions and active ingredients. We used the GRADE method (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) to assess trials for overall quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included one randomised controlled trial involving 64 participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The average age of participants was 54 years; participants had been living with type 2 diabetes for on average nine years, and with their psychiatric diagnosis since they were on average 28 years of age. Investigators evaluated the 24-week Diabetes Awareness and Rehabilitation Training (DART) programme in comparison with usual care plus information (UCI). Follow-up after trial completion was six months. Risk of bias was mostly unclear but was high for selective reporting. Trial authors did not report on diabetes-related complications, all-cause mortality, adverse events, health-related quality of life nor socioeconomic effects. Twelve months of data on self care behaviours as measured by total energy expenditure showed a mean of 2148 kcal for DART and 1496 kcal for UCI (52 participants; very low-quality evidence), indicating no substantial improvement. The intervention did not have a substantial effect on glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 6 or 12 months of follow-up (12-month HbA1c data 7.9% for DART vs 6.9% for UCI; 52 participants; very low-quality evidence). Researchers noted small improvements in body mass index immediately after the intervention was provided and at six months, along with improved weight post intervention. Diabetes knowledge and self efficacy improved immediately following receipt of the intervention, and knowledge also at six months. The intervention did not improve blood pressure.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence is insufficient to show whether type 2 diabetes self management interventions for people with severe mental illness are effective in improving outcomes. Researchers must conduct additional trials to establish efficacy, and to identify the active ingredients in these interventions and the people most likely to benefit from them.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "What are the effects of diabetes self management interventions specifically tailored for adults with type 2 diabetes and severe mental illness?" } ]
query-laysum	22186	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEndophthalmitis is a sight-threatening emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. The condition is characterised by purulent inflammation of the intraocular fluids caused by an infective agent. In exogenous endophthalmitis, the infective agent is foreign and typically introduced into the eye through intraocular surgery or open globe trauma.\nObjectives\nTo assess the potential role of combined pars plana vitrectomy and intravitreal antibiotics in the acute management of exogenous endophthalmitis, versus the standard of care, defined as vitreous tap and intravitreal antibiotics.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There were no restrictions to language or year of publication. The date of the search was 5 May 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared pars plana vitrectomy and intravitreal injection of antibiotics versus intravitreal injection of antibiotics alone, for the immediate management of exogenous endophthalmitis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened search results and extracted data. We considered the following outcomes: visual acuity improvement and change in visual acuity at three and six months; additional surgical procedures, including vitrectomy and cataract surgery, at any time during follow-up; quality of life and adverse effects. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified a single RCT that met our inclusion criteria. The included RCT enrolled a total of 420 participants with clinical evidence of endophthalmitis, within six weeks of cataract surgery or secondary intraocular lens implantation. Participants were randomly assigned according to a 2 x 2 factorial design to either treatment with vitrectomy (VIT) or vitreous tap biopsy (TAP) and to treatment with or without systemic antibiotics. Twenty-four participants did not have a final follow-up: 12 died, five withdrew consent to be followed up, and seven were not willing to return for the visit.\nThe study did not report visual acuity according to the review's predefined outcomes. At three months, 41% of all participants achieved 20/40 or better visual acuity and 69% had 20/100 or better acuity. The study authors reported that there was no statistically significant difference in visual acuity between treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence of a similar requirement for additional surgical procedures (risk ratio RR 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.21). Adverse effects included: VIT group: dislocated intraocular lens (n = 2), macular infarction (n = 1). TAP group: expulsive haemorrhage (n = 1). Quality of life and mean change in visual acuity were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified a single RCT (published 27 years ago) for the role of early vitrectomy in exogenous endophthalmitis, which suggests that there may be no difference between groups (VIT vs TAP) for visual acuity at three or nine months' follow-up.\nWe are of the opinion that there is a clear need for more randomised studies comparing the role of primary vitrectomy in exogenous endophthalmitis. Moreover, since the original RCT study, there have been incremental changes in the surgical techniques with which vitrectomy is performed. Such advances are likely to influence the outcome of early vitrectomy in exogenous endophthalmitis.\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": "We searched for studies up to 5 May 2022." } ]
query-laysum	22187	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe management of anticoagulation therapy around the time of catheter ablation (CA) procedure for adults with arrhythmia is critical and yet is variable in clinical practice. The ideal approach for safe and effective perioperative management should balance the risk of bleeding during uninterrupted anticoagulation while minimising the risk of thromboembolic events with interrupted therapy.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and harms of interrupted versus uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy for catheter ablation (CA) in adults with arrhythmias.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and SCI-Expanded on the Web of Science for randomised controlled trials on 5 January 2021. We also searched three registers on 29 May 2021 to identify ongoing or unpublished trials. We performed backward and forward searches on reference lists of included trials and other systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field. We applied no restrictions on language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing uninterrupted anticoagulation with any modality of interruption with or without heparin bridging for CA in adults aged 18 years or older with arrhythmia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors conducted independent screening, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias. A third review author resolved disagreements. We extracted data on study population, interruption strategy, ablation procedure, thromboembolic events (stroke or systemic embolism), major and minor bleeding, asymptomatic thromboembolic events, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, quality of life (QoL), length of hospital stay, cost, and source of funding. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified 12 studies (4714 participants) that compared uninterrupted periprocedural anticoagulation with interrupted anticoagulation. Studies performed an interruption strategy by either a complete interruption (one study) or by a minimal interruption (11 studies), of which a single-dose skipped strategy was used (nine studies) or two-dose skipped strategy (two studies), with or without heparin bridging.\nStudies included participants with a mean age of 65 years or greater, with only two studies conducted in relatively younger individuals (mean age less than 60 years). Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) was the primary type of AF in all studies, and seven studies included other types of AF (persistent and long-standing persistent). Most participants had CHADS2 or CHADS2-VASc demonstrating a low–moderate risk of stroke, with almost all participants having normal or mildly reduced renal function. Ablation source using radiofrequency energy was the most common (seven studies).\nTen studies (2835 participants) were conducted in East Asian countries (Japan, China, and South Korea), while the remaining two studies were conducted in the USA. Eight studies were conducted in a single centre. Postablation follow-up was variable among studies at less than 30 days (three studies), 30 days (six studies), and more than 30 days postablation (three studies).\nOverall, the meta-analysis showed high uncertainty of the effect between the interrupted strategy compared to uninterrupted strategy on the primary outcomes of thromboembolic events (risk ratio (RR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 9.46; I2 = 59%; 6 studies, 3468 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, subgroup analysis showed that uninterrupted vitamin K antagonist (VKA) is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolic events without increasing the risk of bleeding. There is also uncertainty on the outcome of major bleeding events (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.05; I2 = 6%; 10 studies, 4584 participants; low-certainty evidence). The uncertainty was also evident for the secondary outcomes of minor bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.22; I2 = 87%; 9 studies, 3843 participants; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.21; 442 participants; low-certainty evidence) and asymptomatic thromboembolic events (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.47; I2 = 56%; 6 studies, 1268 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was a lower risk of the composite endpoint of thromboembolic events (stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality) in the interrupted compared to uninterrupted arm (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.81; 1 study, 442 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIn general, the low event rates, different comparator anticoagulants, and use of different ablation procedures may be the cause of imprecision and heterogeneity observed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis meta-analysis showed that the evidence is uncertain to inform the decision to either interrupt or continue anticoagulation therapy around CA procedure in adults with arrhythmia on outcomes of thromboembolic events, major and minor bleeding, all-cause mortality, asymptomatic thromboembolic events, and a composite endpoint of thromboembolic events (stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality).\nMost studies in the review adopted a minimal interruption strategy which has the advantage of reducing the risk of bleeding while maintaining a lower level of anticoagulation to prevent periprocedural thromboembolism, hence low event rates on the primary outcomes of thromboembolism and bleeding. The one study that adopted a complete interruption of VKA showed that uninterrupted VKA reduces the risk of thromboembolism without increasing the risk of bleeding. Hence, future trials with larger samples, tailored to a more generalisable population and using homogeneous periprocedural anticoagulant therapy and ablation source are required to address the safety and efficacy of the optimal management of anticoagulant therapy prior to ablation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence should be interpreted with caution. The review results are limited by variations in most trial comparisons, low numbers of events, trials being conducted in only one medical setting, and mostly described the intervention in East Asian populations. Further high-quality trials are needed to find the ideal strategy for handling blood thinners at the time of the ablation procedure without increasing harm." } ]
query-laysum	22188	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOne of the most challenging milestones for preterm infants is the acquisition of safe and efficient feeding skills. The majority of healthy full term infants are born with skills to coordinate their suck, swallow and respiration. However, this is not the case for preterm infants who develop these skills gradually as they transition from tube feeding to suck feeds. For preterm infants the ability to engage in oral feeding behaviour is dependent on many factors. The complexity of factors influencing feeding readiness has led some researchers to investigate the use of an individualised assessment of an infant's abilities. A limited number of instruments that aim to indicate an individual infant's readiness to commence either breast or bottle feeding have been developed.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of using a feeding readiness instrument when compared to no instrument or another instrument on the outcomes of time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisations.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 22 February 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 22 February 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 22 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing a formal instrument to assess a preterm infant's readiness to commence suck feeds with either no instrument (usual practice) or another feeding readiness instrument.\nData collection and analysis\nThe standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal were used. Two authors independently screened potential studies for inclusion. No studies were found that met our inclusion criteria.\nMain results\nNo studies met the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no evidence to inform clinical practice, with no studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Research is needed in this area to establish an evidence base for the clinical utility of implementing the use of an instrument to assess feeding readiness in the preterm infant population.\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 using an assessment tool which has been designed to assess preterm infants' readiness to commence breast or bottle feeding improve feeding outcomes and decrease length of stay?" } ]
query-laysum	22189	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAlthough lifestyle interventions are commonly recommended in the management of patients with chronic gout, the evidence from trial data for their benefits and safety has not been previously examined in a systematic review.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefits and safety of lifestyle interventions for the treatment of people with chronic gout.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies on 5 April 2013. We also searched the 2010 to 2011 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) abstracts and performed a handsearch of the reference lists of included articles.\nSelection criteria\nStudies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs or CCTs) which compared lifestyle interventions to another therapy (active or placebo) in patients with chronic gout. Outcomes of interest were changes in gout attack frequency, joint pain, serum urate levels, tophus size, function, quality of life and adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied methods recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration for the selection, appraisal, data collection and synthesis of studies. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOnly one study (120 participants), at moderate risk of bias, was included in the review. Patients were randomised to one of three interventions: either skim milk powder (SMP) enriched with glycomacropeptide (GMP) and G600, non-enriched SMP or lactose powder, over a three-month period. The frequency of acute gout attacks, measured as the number of flares per month, decreased in all three groups over the three-month study period. Low quality evidence indicated that there was no difference between the SMP/GMP/G600 group and combined control groups (SMP and lactose powder) at three months (mean difference (MD) -0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.76 to 0.34). There were no significant between-group differences in terms of withdrawals due to adverse effects (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.03), and serious adverse events resulting in hospitalisation (2/40 SMP/GMP/G600 group versus 3/80 controls; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.23 to 7.66). Gastrointestinal adverse effects were the most commonly reported. Pain from self reported gout flares, measured on a 10-point Likert scale, improved more in the SMP/GMP/G600 group compared to controls (MD -1.03, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.10), an absolute difference of 10% (absolute risk difference -0.10, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01). This is unlikely to be of clinical significance. There was no significant difference in physical function between SMP/GMP/G600 and the control groups at three-month followup (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.08). Tophus regression and serum urate normalisation were not reported in this study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile there is good evidence from observational studies of an association between various lifestyle risk factors and gout development, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials to either support or refute the use of lifestyle modifications for improving outcomes in people with chronic gout.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The review shows that, in people with chronic gout\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "\nCompared with standard skim milk or lactose powder, SMP enriched with GMP and G600 may not reduce the frequency of gout attacks, may not improve physical function, but may reduce pain. We do not know if consuming these dairy preparations improves tophus size (tophi are gout crystal deposits commonly found in skin, on the surface of joints or in cartilage) or blood uric acid levels, as these were not reported.\nWe do not have precise information about side effects and complications. Possible side effects may include nausea or diarrhoea." } ]
query-laysum	22190	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSteroid-sparing strategies have been attempted in recent decades to avoid morbidity from long-term steroid intake among kidney transplant recipients. Previous systematic reviews of steroid withdrawal after kidney transplantation have shown a significant increase in acute rejection. There are various protocols to withdraw steroids after kidney transplantation and their possible benefits or harms are subject to systematic review. This is an update of a review first published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of steroid withdrawal or avoidance for kidney transplant recipients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 15 February 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which steroids were avoided or withdrawn at any time point after kidney transplantation were included.\nData collection and analysis\nAssessment of risk of bias and data extraction was performed by two authors independently and disagreement resolved by discussion. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals.\nMain results\nWe included 48 studies (224 reports) that involved 7803 randomised participants. Of these, three studies were conducted in children (346 participants). The 2009 review included 30 studies (94 reports, 5949 participants). Risk of bias was assessed as low for sequence generation in 19 studies and allocation concealment in 14 studies. Incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 22 studies and 37 were free of selective reporting.\nThe 48 included studies evaluated three different comparisons: steroid avoidance or withdrawal compared with steroid maintenance, and steroid avoidance compared with steroid withdrawal. For the adult studies there was no significant difference in patient mortality either in studies comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1913 participants, death at one year post transplantation: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30) or in studies comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1462 participants, death at one year after transplantation: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80). Similarly no significant difference in graft loss was found comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (8 studies, 1817 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92) and comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (7 studies, 1211 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.86). The risk of acute rejection significantly increased in patients treated with steroids for less than 14 days after transplantation (7 studies, 835 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.30) and in patients who were withdrawn from steroids at a later time point after transplantation (10 studies, 1913 participants, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.61). There was no evidence to suggest a difference in harmful events, such as infection and malignancy, in adult kidney transplant recipients. The effect of steroid withdrawal in children is unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated review increases the evidence that steroid avoidance and withdrawal after kidney transplantation significantly increase the risk of acute rejection. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in patient mortality or graft loss up to five year after transplantation, but long-term consequences of steroid avoidance and withdrawal remain unclear until today, because prospective long-term studies have not been conducted.\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": "Our review looked at data relating to 7803 kidney transplant recipients. We assessed the risk of bias in all studies and found that most were unblinded, about half did not report funding sources or how they randomised and allocated study participants.\nWe found that the risk of acute rejection significantly increased with both steroid-reducing treatments among adults who received kidney transplants. There was no little or no difference in the numbers of deaths or loss of transplanted kidneys for both steroid-reducing strategies within five years after kidney transplantation. Side effects, such as infection, cancer or diabetes after transplantation did not differ between groups of patients whose steroids were discontinued compared with those who continued to take steroids. The effect of steroid withdrawal in children is unclear." } ]
query-laysum	22191	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nObstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep. Classical symptoms of the disease — such as snoring, unsatisfactory rest and daytime sleepiness — are experienced mainly by men; women report more unspecific symptoms such as low energy or fatigue, tiredness, initial insomnia and morning headaches. OSA is associated with an increased risk of occupational injuries, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, mortality, and being involved in traffic accidents.\nContinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) - delivered by a machine which uses a hose and mask or nosepiece to deliver constant and steady air pressure- is considered the first treatment option for most people with OSA. However, adherence to treatment is often suboptimal. Myofunctional therapy could be an alternative for many patients. Myofunctional therapy consists of combinations of oropharyngeal exercises - i.e. mouth and throat exercises. These combinations typically include both isotonic and isometric exercises involving several muscles and areas of the mouth, pharynx and upper respiratory tract, to work on functions such as speaking, breathing, blowing, sucking, chewing and swallowing.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of myofunctional therapy (oropharyngeal exercises) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 1 May 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs that recruited adults and children with a diagnosis of OSA.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were daytime sleepiness, morbidity and mortality.\nMain results\nWe found nine studies eligible for inclusion in this review and nine ongoing studies. The nine included RCTs analysed a total of 347 participants, 69 of them women and 13 children. The adults' mean ages ranged from 46 to 51, daytime sleepiness scores from eight to 14, and severity of the condition from mild to severe OSA. The studies' duration ranged from two to four months.\nNone of the studies assessed accidents, cardiovascular diseases or mortality outcomes. We sought data about adverse events, but none of the included studies reported these.\nIn adults, compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy: probably reduces daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), MD (mean difference) -4.52 points, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -6.67 to -2.36; two studies, 82 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may increase sleep quality (MD -3.90 points, 95% CI -6.31 to -1.49; one study, 31 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in a large reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI, MD -13.20 points, 95% CI -18.48 to -7.93; two studies, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence); may have little to no effect in reduction of snoring frequency but the evidence is very uncertain (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) -0.53 points, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.03; two studies, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and probably reduces subjective snoring intensity slightly (MD -1.9 points, 95% CI -3.69 to -0.11 one study, 51 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nCompared to waiting list, myofunctional therapy may: reduce daytime sleepiness (ESS, change from baseline MD -3.00 points, 95% CI -5.47 to -0.53; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); result in little to no difference in sleep quality (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.61; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); and reduce AHI (MD -6.20 points, 95% CI -11.94 to -0.46; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to CPAP, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.30 points, 95% CI -1.65 to 2.25; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence); and may increase AHI (MD 9.60 points, 95% CI 2.46 to 16.74; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to CPAP plus myofunctional therapy, myofunctional therapy alone may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.56 to 2.96; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase AHI (MD 10.50 points, 95% CI 3.43 to 17.57; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to respiratory exercises plus nasal dilator strip, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.46 to 2.86; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably increases sleep quality slightly (-1.94 points, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.72; two studies, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD -3.80 points, 95% CI -9.05 to 1.45; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to standard medical treatment, myofunctional therapy may reduce daytime sleepiness (MD -6.40 points, 95% CI -9.82 to -2.98; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase sleep quality (MD -3.10 points, 95% CI -5.12 to -1.08; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIn children, compared to nasal washing alone, myofunctional therapy and nasal washing may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD 3.00, 95% CI -0.26 to 6.26; one study, 13 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy probably reduces daytime sleepiness and may increase sleep quality in the short term. The certainty of the evidence for all comparisons ranges from moderate to very low, mainly due to lack of blinding of the assessors of subjective outcomes, incomplete outcome data and imprecision. More studies are needed. In future studies, outcome assessors should be blinded. New trials should recruit more participants, including more women and children, and have longer treatment and follow-up periods.\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": "Compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy probably reduces daytime sleepiness and may increase sleep quality in the short term in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea. New blinded studies, with more participants and longer times of treatment and follow-up, are needed.\nThe review is current to May 2020." } ]
query-laysum	22192	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists can be used to prevent a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) without the hypo-oestrogenic side-effects, flare-up, or long down-regulation period associated with agonists. The antagonists directly and rapidly inhibit gonadotrophin release within several hours through competitive binding to pituitary GnRH receptors. This property allows their use at any time during the follicular phase. Several different regimens have been described including multiple-dose fixed (0.25 mg daily from day six to seven of stimulation), multiple-dose flexible (0.25 mg daily when leading follicle is 14 to 15 mm), and single-dose (single administration of 3 mg on day 7 to 8 of stimulation) protocols, with or without the addition of an oral contraceptive pill. Further, women receiving antagonists have been shown to have a lower incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming comparable clinical outcomes for the antagonist and agonist protocols, these benefits would justify a change from the standard long agonist protocol to antagonist regimens. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001, and previously updated in 2006 and 2011.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared with the standard long protocol of GnRH agonists for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted conception cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched from inception to May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, inception to 28 April 2015), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 28 April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 28 April 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to 28 April 2015), CINAHL (to 28 April 2015) and trial registers to 28 April 2015, and handsearched bibliographies of relevant publications and reviews, and abstracts of major scientific meetings, for example the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). We contacted the authors of eligible studies for missing or unpublished data. The evidence is current to 28 April 2015.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently screened the relevant citations for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist protocols in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary review outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Other adverse effects (miscarriage and cycle cancellation) were secondary outcomes. We combined data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included 73 RCTs, with 12,212 participants, comparing GnRH antagonist to long-course GnRH agonist protocols. The quality of the evidence was moderate: limitations were poor reporting of study methods.\nLive birth\nThere was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate between GnRH antagonist and long course GnRH agonist (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.23; 12 RCTs, n = 2303, I2= 27%, moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of live birth following GnRH agonist is assumed to be 29%, the chance following GnRH antagonist would be between 25% and 33%.\nOHSS\nGnRH antagonist was associated with lower incidence of any grade of OHSS than GnRH agonist (OR 0.61, 95% C 0.51 to 0.72; 36 RCTs, n = 7944, I2 = 31%, moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the risk of OHSS following GnRH agonist is assumed to be 11%, the risk following GnRH antagonist would be between 6% and 9%.\nOther adverse effects\nThere was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate per woman randomised between GnRH antagonist group and GnRH agonist group (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 34 RCTs, n = 7082, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence).\nWith respect to cycle cancellation, GnRH antagonist was associated with a lower incidence of cycle cancellation due to high risk of OHSS (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.69; 19 RCTs, n = 4256, I2 = 0%). However cycle cancellation due to poor ovarian response was higher in women who received GnRH antagonist than those who were treated with GnRH agonist (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; 25 RCTs, n = 5230, I2 = 68%; moderate quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate quality evidence that the use of GnRH antagonist compared with long-course GnRH agonist protocols is associated with a substantial reduction in OHSS without reducing the likelihood of achieving live birth.\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 was no evidence of a difference between the groups in live birth rates (i.e. rates at conclusion of a course of treatment). The evidence suggested that if the chance of live birth following GnRH agonist is assumed to be 29%, the chance following GnRH antagonist would be between 25% and 33%. However, the OHSS rates were much higher after GnRH agonist. The evidence suggested that if the risk of OHSS following GnRH agonist is assumed to be 11%, the risk following GnRH antagonist would be between 6% and 9%." } ]
query-laysum	22193	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStudies suggest that overweight and obese breast cancer survivors are at increased risk of cancer recurrence and have higher all-cause mortality. Obesity has an impact on breast cancer survivor's quality of life (QOL) and increases the risk of longer-term morbidities such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Many cancer guidelines recommend survivors maintain a healthy weight but there is a lack of evidence regarding which weight loss method to recommend.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different body weight loss approaches in breast cancer survivors who are overweight or obese (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2).\nSearch methods\nWe carried out a search in the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's (CBCG's) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6), MEDLINE (2012 to June 2019), Embase (2015 to June 2019), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and Clinicaltrials.gov on 17 June 2019. We also searched Mainland Chinese academic literature databases (CNKI), VIP, Wan Fang Data and SinoMed on 25 June 2019. We screened references in relevant manuscripts.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and randomised cross-over trials evaluating body weight management for overweight and obese breast cancer survivors (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2). The aim of the intervention had to be weight loss.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias for the included studies, and applied the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed as proportions using the risk ratio (RR) as the measure of effect. Continuous data were analysed as means with the measure of effect being expressed as the mean differences (MDs) between treatment groups in change from baseline values with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), when all studies reported exactly the same outcomes on the same scale. If similar outcomes were reported on different scales the standardised mean difference (SMD) was used as the measure of effect. Quality of life data and relevant biomarkers were extracted where available.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 20 studies (containing 23 intervention-comparisons) and analysed 2028 randomised women. Participants in the experimental groups received weight loss interventions using the core element of dietary changes, either in isolation or in combination with other core elements such as 'diet and exercise', 'diet and psychosocial support' or 'diet, exercise and psychosocial support'. Participants in the controls groups either received usual care, written materials or placebo, or wait-list controls. The duration of interventions ranged from 0.5 months to 24 months. The duration of follow-up ranged from three months to 36 months.\nThere were no time-to-event data available for overall survival, breast cancer recurrence and disease-free survival. There was a relatively small amount of data available for breast cancer recurrence (281 participants from 4 intervention-comparisons with 14 recurrence events; RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 5.60; low-quality evidence) and the analysis was likely underpowered.\nOverall, we found low-quality evidence that weight loss interventions for overweight and obese breast cancer survivors resulted in a reduction in body weight (MD: -2.25 kg, 95% CI: -3.19 to -1.3 kg; 21 intervention-comparisons; 1751 women), body mass index (BMI) (MD: -1.08 kg/m2, 95% CI: -1.61 to -0.56 kg/m2; 17 intervention-comparisons; 1353 women), and waist circumference (MD:-1.73 cm, 95% CI: -3.17 to -0.29 cm; 13 intervention-comparisons; 1193 women), and improved overall quality of life (SMD: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.29; 10 intervention-comparisons; 867 women). No increase was seen in adverse events for women in the intervention groups compared to controls (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.17; 4 intervention-comparisons; 394 women; high-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses revealed that decreases in body weight, BMI and waist circumference were present in women regardless of their ethnicity and menopausal status.\nMultimodal weight loss interventions (which referred to 'diet, exercise and psychosocial support') appeared to result in greater reductions in body weight (MD: -2.88 kg, 95% CI: -3.98 to -1.77 kg; 13 intervention-comparisons; 1526 participants), BMI (MD: -1.44 kg/m2, 95% CI: -2.16 to -0.72 kg/m2; 11 studies; 1187 participants) and waist circumference (MD:-1.66 cm, 95% CI: -3.49 to -0.16 cm; 8 intervention-comparisons; 1021 participants) compared to dietary change alone, however the evidence was low quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWeight loss interventions, particularly multimodal interventions (incorporating diet, exercise and psychosocial support), in overweight or obese breast cancer survivors appear to result in decreases in body weight, BMI and waist circumference and improvement in overall quality of life. There was no increase in adverse events. There is a lack of data to determine the impact of weight loss interventions on survival or breast cancer recurrence. This review is based on studies with marked heterogeneity regarding weight loss interventions. Due to the methods used in included studies, there was a high risk of bias regarding blinding of participants and assessors.\nFurther research is required to determine the optimal weight loss intervention and assess the impact of weight loss on survival outcomes. Long-term follow-up in weight loss intervention studies is required to determine if weight changes are sustained beyond the intervention periods.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why we did this Cochrane Review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to identify which weight-loss programmes work best to help overweight and obese breast cancer survivors to lose weight; and whether the programmes had advantages or unwanted effects." } ]
query-laysum	22194	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma guidelines aim to guide health practitioners to optimise treatment for patients to minimise symptoms, improve or maintain good lung function, and prevent acute exacerbations. The principle of asthma guidelines is based on a step-up or step-down regimen of asthma medications to maximise health using minimum doses. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a marker of eosinophilic inflammation and tailoring asthma medications in accordance to airway eosinophilic levels may improve asthma outcomes such as indices of control or reduce exacerbations, or both.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), in comparison to not using FeNO, that is, management based on clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) or asthma guidelines (or both), for asthma-related outcomes in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and reference lists of articles. The last searches were in June 2016.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjustment of asthma medications based on FeNO levels compared to those not using FeNO, that is, management based on clinical symptoms or asthma guidelines (or both) involving children.\nData collection and analysis\nWe reviewed results of searches against predetermined criteria for inclusion. Two review authors independently selected relevant studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for further information with responses provided from three.\nMain results\nThe review included nine studies; these studies differed in a variety of ways including definition of asthma exacerbations, FeNO cut-off levels used (12 parts per billion (ppb) to 30 ppb), the way in which FeNO was used to adjust therapy and duration of study (6 to 12 months). Of 1426 children randomised, 1329 completed the studies. The inclusion criteria for the participants in each study varied but all had a diagnosis of asthma. There was a significant difference in the number of children having one or more asthma exacerbations over the study period, they were significantly lower in the FeNO group in comparison to the control group (odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.80; 1279 participants; 8 studies). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) over 52 weeks was 10 (95% CI 7 to 20). There was no difference between the groups when comparing exacerbation rates (mean difference (MD) -0.37, 95% CI -0.8 to 0.06; 736 participants; 4 studies; I2 = 67%). The number of children in the FeNO group requiring oral corticosteroid courses was lower in comparison to the children in the control group (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.83; 1169 participants; 7 studies; I2 = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for exacerbations requiring hospitalisation (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.36; 1110 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 0%). There were no significant differences between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), FeNO levels, symptom scores or inhaled corticosteroid doses at final visit). The included studies recorded no adverse events.\nThree studies had inadequate blinding and were thus considered to have a high risk of bias. However, when these studies were removed in subgroup analysis, the difference between the groups for the primary outcome (exacerbations) remained statistically significant. The GRADE quality of the evidence ranged from moderate (for the outcome 'Number of participants who had one or more exacerbations over the study period') to very low (for the outcome 'Exacerbation rates'), based on lack of blinding, statistical heterogeneity and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this updated review with five new included studies, tailoring asthma medications based on FeNO levels (in comparison with primarily guideline management) significantly decreased the number of children who had one or more exacerbations over the study period but did not impact on the day-to-day clinical symptoms or inhaled corticosteroid doses. Therefore, the use of FeNO to guide asthma therapy in children may be beneficial in a subset of children, it cannot be universally recommended for all children with asthma.\nFurther RCTs need to be conducted and these should encompass different asthma severities, different settings including primary care and less affluent settings, and consider different FeNO cut-offs.\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": "In this review, we found that guiding asthma medicines based on exhaled nitric oxide (compared to a control group) was beneficial in reducing the number of children who had at least one exacerbation during the study. In the control group where therapy was guided according to clinical symptoms, 40 children out of 100 had at least one exacerbation over 48.5 weeks, compared to 28 out of 100 children where treatment was guided by exhaled nitric oxide. However, we found no difference between groups in other measures of asthma severity that impact on day-to-day clinical symptoms or inhaled corticosteroid dose (medications used to control asthma). Therefore, using exhaled nitric oxide levels to adjust asthma therapy may reduce the number of attacks that children with asthma have but does not impact on the day-to-day symptoms." } ]
query-laysum	22195	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOvarian cancer is seventh most common cancer in women worldwide. Approximately 1.3% of women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer at some point during their life time. The majority of tumours arise from surface of the ovary (epithelial). Two thirds of these women will present with advanced disease, requiring aggressive treatment, which includes debulking surgery (removal of as much disease as possible) and chemotherapy. However, most women (75%) with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) will relapse following surgery and chemotherapy. Patients who relapse are treated with either platinum or non-platinum drugs and this is dependent on the platinum-sensitivity and platinum-free interval. These drug regimens are generally well-tolerated although there are potential severe side effects. New treatments that can be used to treat recurrence or prevent disease progression after first-line or subsequent chemotherapy are important, especially those with a low toxicity profile. Hormones such as luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists have been used in the treatment of relapsed EOC. Some studies have shown objective remissions, while other studies have shown little or no benefit. Most small studies report a better side-effect profile for LHRH agonists when compared to standard chemotherapeutic agents used in EOC.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and safety of luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists with chemotherapeutic agents or placebo in relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group trials register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase up to January 2016. We also searched registers of clinical trials and abstracts of scientific meetings.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LHRH agonists with chemotherapeutic agents or placebo in relapsed EOC.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed whether relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, retrieved data and assessed risk of bias.\nMain results\nTwo studies, including 97 women, met our inclusion criteria: one assessed LHRH agonist (leuprorelin) use in relapsed (platinum-resistant and platinum-refractory) EOC in comparison with a chemotherapeutic agent (treosulfan) (Du Bois 2002); the other examined LHRH agonist (decapeptyl) versus a placebo (Currie 1994). Since both studies had different control groups, a meta-analysis was not possible.\nThere may be little or no difference between treatment with leuprorelin or treosulfan in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.67; verylow-quality evidence) or progression-free survival (PFS) at six and 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.68, and RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.66; verylow-quality evidence), respectively (Du Bois 2002). The duration of follow-up was 2.5 years and quality of life (QoL) was not reported in this study.\nAlopecia and fatigue were probably more common with treosulfan than leuprorelin (alopecia RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.91 (very low-quality evidence)). There may be little or no difference in other Grade 3/4 side effects: nausea and vomiting (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.66 (very low-quality evidence)); neurotoxicity (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.71 (very low-quality evidence)) and neutropenia (RR 0.97, 95% 0.06 to 14.97 (very low-quality evidence)),\nThe Currie 1994 study, which compared decapeptyl treatment with placebo, reported mean PFS of 16 weeks verus 11.2 weeks, respectively. No relative effects measures or P value at a particular time point were reported. Overall survival (OS) and QoL outcomes were not reported. In addition, adverse events were only mentioned for the decapeptyl group.\nAdverse events were incompletely reported (no adverse events in decapeptyl group, but not reported for the placebo group).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on this review of two small RCTs, there is not enough evidence to comment on the safety and effectiveness of LHRH agonists in the treatment of platinum-refractory and platinum-resistant (relapsed) EOC. Overall, the quality of evidence for all outcomes (including OS, PFS, QoL and adverse events) is very low.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We conducted this review to assess whether hormonal therapy (LHRH agonist) was effective and safe compared with chemotherapy or placebo in women with relapsed EOC." } ]
query-laysum	22196	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRespiratory distress, particularly respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), is the single most important cause of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. In infants with progressive respiratory insufficiency, intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) with surfactant has been the usual treatment, but it is invasive, potentially resulting in airway and lung injury. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been used for the prevention and treatment of respiratory distress, as well as for the prevention of apnoea, and in weaning from IPPV. Its use in the treatment of RDS might reduce the need for IPPV and its sequelae.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of continuous distending pressure in the form of CPAP on the need for IPPV and associated morbidity in spontaneously breathing preterm infants with respiratory distress.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions; and CINAHL on 30 June 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised trials of preterm infants with respiratory distress were eligible. Interventions were CPAP by mask, nasal prong, nasopharyngeal tube or endotracheal tube, compared with spontaneous breathing with supplemental oxygen as necessary.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods of Cochrane and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nSubgroup analyses were planned on the basis of birth weight (greater than or less than 1000 g or 1500 g), gestational age (groups divided at about 28 weeks and 32 weeks), timing of application (early versus late in the course of respiratory distress), pressure applied (high versus low) and trial setting (tertiary compared with non-tertiary hospitals; high income compared with low income)\nMain results\nWe included five studies involving 322 infants; two studies used face mask CPAP, two studies used nasal CPAP and one study used endotracheal CPAP and continuing negative pressure for a small number of less ill babies. For this update, we included one new trial.\nCPAP was associated with lower risk of treatment failure (death or use of assisted ventilation) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.82; typical risk difference (RD) –0.19, 95% CI –0.28 to –0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 4 to 11; I2 = 50%; 5 studies, 322 infants; very low-certainty evidence), lower use of ventilatory assistance (typical RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96; typical RD –0.13, 95% CI –0.25 to –0.02; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 50; I2 = 55%; very low-certainty evidence) and lower overall mortality (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.83; typical RD –0.11, 95% CI –0.18 to –0.04; NNTB 9, 95% CI 2 to 13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 322 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). CPAP was associated with increased risk of pneumothorax (typical RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.30; typical RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 7 to 50; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 274 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia, defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 209 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report use of surfactant, intraventricular haemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotising enterocolitis and neurodevelopment outcomes in childhood.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn preterm infants with respiratory distress, the application of CPAP is associated with reduced respiratory failure, use of mechanical ventilation and mortality and an increased rate of pneumothorax compared to spontaneous breathing with supplemental oxygen as necessary. Three out of five of these trials were conducted in the 1970s. Therefore, the applicability of these results to current practice is unclear. Further studies in resource-poor settings should be considered and research to determine the most appropriate pressure level needs to be considered.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "we wanted to know whether using continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen alone would safely reduce death or the use of mechanical ventilation in preterm infants with breathing difficulties." } ]
query-laysum	22197	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn children, dental caries (tooth decay) is among the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide. Pulp interventions are indicated for extensive tooth decay. Depending on the severity of the disease, three pulp treatment techniques are available: direct pulp capping, pulpotomy and pulpectomy. After treatment, the cavity is filled with a medicament. Materials commonly used include mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), calcium hydroxide, formocresol or ferric sulphate.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014 when insufficient evidence was found to clearly identify one superior pulpotomy medicament and technique.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different pulp treatment techniques and associated medicaments for the treatment of extensive decay in primary teeth.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 August 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 August 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 August 2017) and the Web of Science (1945 to 10 August 2017). OpenGrey was searched for grey literature. The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions that combined a pulp treatment technique with a medicament or device in children with extensive decay in the dental pulp of their primary teeth.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed 'Risk of bias'. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information when necessary. The primary outcomes were clinical failure and radiological failure, as defined in trials, at six, 12 and 24 months. We performed data synthesis with pair-wise meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by using I² coefficients.\nMain results\nWe included 40 new trials bringing the total to 87 included trials (7140 randomised teeth) for this update. All were small, single-centre trials (median number of randomised teeth = 68). All trials were assessed at unclear or high risk of bias.\nThe 87 trials examined 125 different comparisons: 75 comparisons of different medicaments or techniques for pulpotomy; 25 comparisons of different medicaments for pulpectomy; four comparisons of pulpotomy and pulpectomy; and 21 comparisons of different medicaments for direct pulp capping.\nThe proportion of clinical failures and radiological failures was low in all trials. In many trials, there were either no clinical failures or no radiographic failures in either study arm.\nFor pulpotomy, we assessed three comparisons as providing moderate-quality evidence. Compared with formocresol, MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures, with a statistically significant difference at 12 months for clinical failure and at six, 12 and 24 months for radiological failure (12 trials, 740 participants). Compared with calcium hydroxide, MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures, with statistically significant differences for clinical failure at 12 and 24 months. MTA also appeared to reduce radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months (four trials, 150 participants) (low-quality evidence). When comparing calcium hydroxide with formocresol, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of formocresol for clinical failure at six and 12 months and radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months (six trials (one with no failures), 332 participants).\nRegarding pulpectomy, we found moderate-quality evidence for two comparisons. The comparison between Metapex and zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) paste was inconclusive, with no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions for failure at 6 or 12 months (two trials, 62 participants). Similarly inconclusive, there was no clear evidence of a difference in failure between Endoflas and ZOE (outcomes measured at 6 months; two trials, 80 participants). There was low-quality evidence of a difference in failure at 12 months that suggested ZOE paste may be better than Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) paste (two trials, 161 participants).\nRegarding direct pulp capping, the small number of studies undertaking the same comparison limits any interpretation. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low or very low for all comparisons. One trial appeared to favour formocresol over calcium hydroxide; however, there are safety concerns about formocresol.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth is generally successful. Many included trials had no clinical or radiological failures in either trial arm, and the overall proportion of failures was low. Any future trials in this area would require a very large sample size and follow up of a minimum of one year.\nThe evidence suggests MTA may be the most efficacious medicament to heal the root pulp after pulpotomy of a deciduous tooth. As MTA is relatively expensive, future research could be undertaken to confirm if Biodentine, enamel matrix derivative, laser treatment or Ankaferd Blood Stopper are acceptable second choices, and whether, where none of these treatments can be used, application of sodium hypochlorite is the safest option. Formocresol, though effective, has known concerns about toxicity.\nRegarding pulpectomy, there is no conclusive evidence that one medicament or technique is superior to another, and so the choice of medicament remains at the clinician's discretion. Research could be undertaken to confirm if ZOE paste is more effective than Vitapex and to evaluate other alternatives.\nRegarding direct pulp capping, the small number of studies and low quality of the evidence limited interpretation. Formocresol may be more successful than calcium hydroxide; however, given its toxicity, any future research should focus on alternatives.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We judged the quality of the evidence suggesting the superiority of MTA over calcium hydroxide or formocresol after pulpotomy to be moderate. For other comparisons, the quality of the evidence is low or very low, which means we cannot be certain about the findings. The low quality is due to shortcomings in the methods used within the individual trials, the small number of children included in the trials and the short-term follow-up after treatment.\nFuture trials to evaluate which healing agents are best for the three pulp treatments would require a very large sample size and should follow up the participants of a minimum of one year." } ]
query-laysum	22198	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe impact of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma is not well understood.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions on occupational asthma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); EMBASE(Ovid); NIOSHTIC-2; and CISILO (CCOHS) up to July 31, 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all eligible randomized controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time-series of workplace interventions for occupational asthma.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data.\nMain results\nWe included 26 non-randomized controlled before and after studies with 1,695 participants that reported on three comparisons: complete removal from exposure and reduced exposure compared to continued exposure, and complete removal from exposure compared to reduced exposure. Reduction of exposure was achieved by limiting use of the agent, improving ventilation, or using protective equipment in the same job; by changing to another job with intermittent exposure; or by implementing education programs. For continued exposure, 56 per 1000 workers reported absence of symptoms at follow-up, the decrease in forced expiratory volume in one second as a percentage of a reference value (FEV1 %) was 5.4% during follow-up, and the standardized change in non-specific bronchial hyperreactivity (NSBH) was -0.18.\nIn 18 studies, authors compared removal from exposure to continued exposure. Removal may increase the likelihood of reporting absence of asthma symptoms, with risk ratio (RR) 4.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 13.86), and it may improve asthma symptoms, with RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.26 to 4.84), compared to continued exposure. Change in FEV1 % may be better with removal from exposure, with a mean difference (MD) of 4.23 % (95% CI 1.14 to 7.31) compared to continued exposure. NSBH may improve with removal from exposure, with standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.43 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.82).\nIn seven studies, authors compared reduction of exposure to continued exposure. Reduction of exposure may increase the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms, with RR 2.65 (95% CI 1.24 to 5.68). There may be no considerable difference in FEV1 % between reduction and continued exposure, with MD 2.76 % (95% CI -1.53 to 7.04) . No studies reported or enabled calculation of change in NSBH.\nIn ten studies, authors compared removal from exposure to reduction of exposure. Following removal from exposure there may be no increase in the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms, with RR 6.05 (95% CI 0.86 to 42.34), and improvement in symptoms, with RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.47), as well as no considerable change in FEV1 %, with MD 2.58 % (95% CI −3.02 to 8.17). However, with all three outcomes, there may be improved results for removal from exposure in the subset of patients exposed to low molecular weight agents. No studies reported or enabled calculation of change in NSBH.\nIn two studies, authors reported that the risk of unemployment after removal from exposure may increase compared with reduction of exposure, with RR 14.28 (95% CI 2.06 to 99.16). Four studies reported a decrease in income of 20% to 50% after removal from exposure.\nThe quality of the evidence is very low for all outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBoth removal from exposure and reduction of exposure may improve asthma symptoms compared with continued exposure. Removal from exposure, but not reduction of exposure, may improve lung function compared to continued exposure. When we compared removal from exposure directly to reduction of exposure, the former may improve symptoms and lung function more among patients exposed to low molecular weight agents. Removal from exposure may also increase the risk of unemployment. Care providers should balance the potential clinical benefits of removal from exposure or reduction of exposure with potential detrimental effects of unemployment. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions for occupational asthma.\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": "To determine the effectiveness of workplace interventions for the treatment of occupational asthma." } ]
query-laysum	22199	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVitrectomy is an established treatment for the complications of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). However, a number of complications can occur during and after vitrectomy for PDR. These include bleeding and the creation of retinal holes during surgery, and bleeding, retinal detachment and scar tissue on the retina after surgery. These complications can limit vision, require further surgery and delay recovery. The use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents injected into the eye before surgery has been proposed to reduce the occurrence of these complications. Anti-VEGF agents can reduce the amount and vascularity of abnormal new vessels associated with PDR, facilitating their dissection during surgery, reducing intra- and postoperative bleeding, and potentially improving outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of perioperative anti-VEGF use on the outcomes of vitrectomy for the treatment of complications for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 22 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that looked at the use of anti-VEGFs and the incidence of complications in people undergoing vitrectomy for PDR.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed and extracted the data. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nThe critical outcomes of the review were the mean difference in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between study arms at six (± three) months after the primary vitrectomy, the incidence of early postoperative vitreous cavity haemorrhage (POVCH, within four weeks postoperatively), the incidence of late POVCH (occurring more than four weeks postoperatively), the incidence of revision surgery for POVCH within six months, the incidence of revision surgery for recurrent traction/macular pucker of any type and/or rhegmatogenous retinal detachment within six months and vision-related quality of life (VRQOL) measures. Important outcomes included the proportion of people with a visual acuity of counting fingers (1.8 logMAR or worse), the number of operative retinal breaks reported and the frequency of silicone oil tamponade required at time of surgery.\nMain results\nThe current review includes 28 RCTs that looked at the pre- or intraoperative use of intravitreal anti-VEGFs to improve the outcomes of pars plana vitrectomy for complications of PDR. The studies were conducted in a variety of countries (11 from China, three from Iran, two from Italy, two from Mexico and the remaining studies from South Korea, the UK, Egypt, Brazil, Japan, Canada, the USA, Indonesia and Pakistan). The inclusion criteria for entry into the studies were the well-recognised complications of proliferative retinopathy: non-clearing vitreous haemorrhage, tractional retinal detachment involving the macula or combined tractional rhegmatogenous detachment. The included studies randomised a total of 1914 eyes.\nWe identified methodological issues in all of the included studies. Risk of bias was highest for masking of participants and investigators, and a number of studies were unclear when describing randomisation methods and sequence allocation.\nParticipants receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF in addition to pars plana vitrectomy achieved better BCVA at six months compared to people undergoing vitrectomy alone (mean difference (MD) -0.25 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.11; 13 studies, 699 eyes; low-certainty evidence).\nPre- or intraoperative anti-VEGF reduced the incidence of early POVCH (12% versus 31%, risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58; 14 studies, 1038 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence).\nPerioperative anti-VEGF use was also associated with a reduction in the incidence of late POVCH (10% versus 23%, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74; 11 studies, 579 eyes; high-certainty evidence).\nThe need for revision surgery for POVCH occurred less frequently in the anti-VEGF group compared with control, but the confidence intervals were wide and compatible with no effect (4% versus 13%, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.28; 4 studies 207 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Similar imprecisely measured effects were seen for revision surgery for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (5% versus 11%, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.66; 4 studies, 145 eyes; low-certainty evidence).\nAnti-VEGFs reduce the incidence of intraoperative retinal breaks (12% versus 31%, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.59; 12 studies, 915 eyes; high-certainty evidence) and the need for silicone oil (19% versus 41%, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.80; 10 studies, 591 eyes; very low-certainty evidence).\nNo data were available on quality of life outcomes or the proportion of participants with visual acuity of counting fingers or worse.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe perioperative use of anti-VEGF reduces the risk of late POVCH, probably results in lower early POVCH risk and may improve visual outcomes. It also reduces the incidence of intraoperative retinal breaks. The evidence is very uncertain about its effect on the need for silicone oil tamponade. The reported complications from its use appear to be low. Agreement on variables included and outcome standardisation is required in trials studying vitrectomy for PDR.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We are confident that anti-VEGF injections reduce the incidence of late POVCH and intraoperative retinal breaks (high-certainty evidence), fairly certain that they reduce the incidence of early POVCH and the need for revision surgery for POVCH (moderate-certainty evidence) but less certain about the effects on visual outcomes, revision surgery for retinal detachment and silicone oil use (low-certainty evidence)." } ]
query-laysum	22200	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients treated with mechanical ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) have a high risk of developing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has been estimated to affect 5% to 40% of patients treated with mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. The attributable mortality rate of VAP has been estimated at about 9%. Selective digestive decontamination (SDD), which consists of the topical application of non-absorbable antimicrobial agents to the oropharynx and gastroenteric tract during the whole period of mechanical ventilation, is often used to reduce the risk of VAP. A related treatment is selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD), in which topical antibiotics are applied to the oropharynx only. This is an update of a review first published in 1997 and updated in 2002, 2004, and 2009.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of topical antibiotic regimens (SDD and SOD), given alone or in combination with systemic antibiotics, to prevent mortality and respiratory infections in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours in ICUs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, PubMed, and Embase on 5 February 2020. We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing and unpublished studies on 5 February 2020. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of topical prophylactic antibiotic regimens in adults receiving intensive care and mechanical ventilation. The included studies compared topical plus systemic antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment; topical antibiotics versus no treatment; and topical plus systemic antibiotics versus systemic antibiotics.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 41 trials involving 11,004 participants (five new studies were added in this update). The minimum duration of mechanical ventilation ranged from 2 (19 studies) to 6 days (one study). Thirteen studies reported the mean length of ICU stay, ranging from 11 to 33 days. The percentage of immunocompromised patients ranged from 0% (10 studies) to 22% (1 study).\nThe reporting quality of the majority of included studies was very poor, so we judged more than 40% of the studies as at unclear risk of selection bias. We judged all studies to be at low risk of performance bias, though 47.6% were open-label, because hospitals usually have standardised infection control programmes, and possible subjective decisions on who should be tested for the presence or absence of RTIs are unlikely in an ICU setting. Regarding detection bias, we judged all included studies as at low risk for the outcome mortality. For the outcome RTIs, we judged all double-blind studies as at low risk of detection bias. We judged five open-label studies as at high risk of detection bias, as the diagnosis of RTI was not based on microbiological exams; we judged the remaining open-label studies as at low risk of detection bias, as a standardised set of diagnostic criteria, including results of microbiological exams, were used.\nTopical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis reduces overall mortality compared with placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.96; 18 studies; 5290 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 303 deaths in 1000 people this equates to 48 (95% CI 15 to 79) fewer deaths with topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces RTIs (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.53; 17 studies; 2951 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 417 RTIs in 1000 people this equates to 238 (95% CI 196 to 271) fewer RTIs with topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis.\nTopical antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces overall mortality compared with no topical antibiotic prophylaxis (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 22 studies, 4213 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 290 deaths in 1000 people this equates to 19 (95% CI 37 fewer to 15 more) fewer deaths with topical antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce RTIs (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; 19 studies, 2698 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 318 RTIs in 1000 people this equates to 137 (95% CI 83 to 178) fewer RTIs with topical antibiotic prophylaxis.\nSixteen studies reported adverse events and dropouts due to adverse events, which were poorly reported with sparse data. The certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTreatments based on topical prophylaxis probably reduce respiratory infections, but not mortality, in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours, whereas a combination of topical and systemic prophylactic antibiotics reduces both overall mortality and RTIs. However, we cannot rule out that the systemic component of the combined treatment provides a relevant contribution in the observed reduction of mortality. No conclusion can be drawn about adverse events as they were poorly reported with sparse data.\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 aimed to assess the effect of two topical antibiotic regimens (selective digestive decontamination (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD)) in preventing deaths and respiratory infections in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours in intensive care units (ICUs). In SDD, non-absorbable antibiotics are applied to the oropharynx (back third of the tongue, the soft palate, the side and back walls of the throat and tonsils), oesophagus, stomach, and intestine. SOD involves the application of non-absorbable antibiotics to the oropharynx only. These regimens may be given alone or in combination with systemic antibiotics." } ]
query-laysum	22201	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMacular oedema (MO) is the accumulation of extracellular fluid in the central retina (the macula). It may occur after cataract surgery and may give rise to poor visual outcome, with reduced visual acuity and distortion of the central vision. MO is often self-limiting with spontaneous resolution, but a small proportion of people with chronic persistent MO may be difficult to treat. Chronic oedema may lead to the formation of cystic spaces in the retina termed 'cystoid macular oedema' (CMO). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used in cataract surgery and may reduce the chances of developing MO.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this review is to answer the question: is there evidence to support the prophylactic use of topical NSAIDs either in addition to, or instead of, topical steroids postoperatively to reduce the incidence of macular oedema (MO) and associated visual morbidity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched a number of electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. Date last searched 2 September 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which adult participants had undergone surgery for age-related cataract. We included participants irrespective of their baseline risk of MO, in particular we included people with diabetes and uveitis. We included trials of preoperative and/or postoperative topical NSAIDs in conjunction with postoperative topical steroids. The comparator was postoperative topical steroids alone. A secondary comparison was preoperative and/or postoperative topical NSAIDs alone versus postoperative topical steroids alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data using standard methods expected by Cochrane. We pooled data using a random-effects model. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and considered the following: risk of bias of included studies, precision of the effect estimate, consistency of effects between studies, directness of the outcome measure and publication bias.\nMain results\nWe identified 34 studies that were conducted in the Americas, Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean region and South-East Asia. Over 5000 people were randomised in these trials. The majority of studies enrolled one eye per participant; a small subset (4 trials) enrolled a proportion of people with bilateral surgery. Twenty-eight studies compared NSAIDs plus steroids with steroids alone. Six studies compared NSAIDs with steroids. A variety of NSAIDs were used, including ketorolac, diclofenac, nepafenac, indomethacin, bromfenac, flurbiprofen and pranopfen. Follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. In general, the studies were poorly reported. We did not judge any of the studies at low risk of bias in all domains. Six studies were funded by industry, seven studies were funded from non-industry sources, and the rest of the studies did not report the source of funding.\nThere was low-certainty evidence that people receiving topical NSAIDs in combination with steroids may have a lower risk of poor vision due to MO at three months after cataract surgery compared with people receiving steroids alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.76; eyes = 1360; studies = 5; I2 = 5%). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias in the included studies and indirectness, as the extent of visual loss was not always clear. Only one study reported poor vision due to MO at 12 months and we judged this to be very low-certainty evidence as there were only two events. Quality of life was only reported in one of the 34 studies comparing NSAIDs plus steroids versus steroids alone, and it was not fully reported, other than to comment on lack of differences between groups. There was evidence of a reduced risk of MO with NSAIDs at three months after surgery, but we judged this to be low-certainty due to risk of bias and publication bias (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.49; eyes = 3638; studies = 21). There was inconsistent evidence on central retinal thickness at three months (I2 = 87%). Results ranged from -30.9 µm in favour of NSAIDs plus steroids to 7.44 µm in favour of steroids alone. Similarly, data on best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were inconsistent, but nine out of 10 trials reporting this outcome found between-group differences in visual acuity of less than 0.1 logMAR.\nNone of the six studies comparing NSAIDs alone with steroids reported on poor vision due to MO at three or 12 months. There was low-certainty evidence that central retinal thickness was lower in the NSAIDs group at three months (mean difference (MD) -22.64 µm, 95% CI -38.86 to -6.43; eyes = 121; studies = 2). Five studies reported on MO and showed a reduced risk with NSAIDs, but we judged this evidence to be of low-certainty (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.41; eyes = 520). Three studies reported BCVA at three months and the results of these trials were inconsistent, but all three studies found differences of less than 0.1 logMAR between groups.\nWe did not note any major adverse events - the main consistent observation was burning or stinging sensation with the use of NSAIDs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nUsing topical NSAIDs may reduce the risk of developing macular oedema after cataract surgery, although it is possible that current estimates as to the size of this reduction are exaggerated. It is unclear the extent to which this reduction has an impact on the visual function and quality of life of patients. There is little evidence to suggest any important effect on vision after surgery. The value of adding topical NSAIDs to steroids, or using them as an alternative to topical steroids, with a view to reducing the risk of poor visual outcome after cataract surgery is therefore uncertain. Future trials should address the remaining clinical uncertainty of whether prophylactic topical NSAIDs are of benefit, particularly with respect to longer-term follow-up (at least to 12 months), and should be large enough to detect reduction in the risk of the outcome of most interest to patients, which is chronic macular oedema leading to visual loss.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors found 34 relevant studies. These studies were conducted in all parts of the world including the Americas, Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean region and South-East Asia. Most (28) of these studies compared NSAIDs combined with steroids against steroids alone. Some of the studies (6) compared NSAIDs with steroids alone. A variety of NSAIDs were used, including ketorolac, diclofenac, nepafenac, indomethacin, bromfenac, pranopfen and flurbiprofen. People taking part in these trials were followed up from between one and 12 months. Most studies only followed up to two months or less. Six studies were funded by industry; seven studies were funded from non-industry sources and the rest of the studies did not report the source of funding.\nThere was low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs reduce the chance of poor vision due to macular oedema three months after cataract surgery. Only one study reported on poor vision due to macular oedema at 12 months and we judged this to have very low-certainty of evidence.\nUsing NSAIDs was associated with a reduced risk of macular oedema but the review authors judged this to be low-certainty.\nInconsistent results were seen for some measurements of macular oedema, such as the thickness of the tissue at the back of the eye (central retinal thickness) at three months after surgery. This measurement was not reported by any studies at 12 months after surgery.\nSimilarly, inconsistent results were seen for vision measurement (visual acuity) but most studies found small differences between people given NSAIDs and people not given NSAIDs.\nOnly one study reported quality of life, and this suggested little impact of NSAIDs on quality of life.\nAdverse events mainly consisted of a burning or stinging sensation." } ]
query-laysum	22202	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe reduction of lung inflammation is one of the goals of cystic fibrosis therapy. Inhaled corticosteroids are often used in this respect to treat children and adults with cystic fibrosis. The rationale for this is their potential to reduce lung damage arising from inflammation, as well as their effect on symptomatic wheezing. It is important to establish the current level of evidence for the risks and benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, especially in the light of their known adverse effects on growth. This is an update of a previously published review; however, due to the lack of research in this area, we do not envisage undertaking any further updates.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of taking regular inhaled corticosteroids compared to not taking them in children and adults 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. We requested information from pharmaceutical companies manufacturing inhaled corticosteroids and authors of identified trials.\nDate of most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 19 November 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials, published and unpublished, comparing inhaled corticosteroids to placebo or standard treatment in individuals with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent authors assessed methodological quality and risk of bias in trials using established criteria and extracted data using standard pro formas. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nThe searches identified 35 citations, of which 27 (representing 13 trials) were eligible for inclusion. These 13 trials reported the use of inhaled corticosteroids in 525 people with cystic fibrosis aged between 6 and 55 years. One was a withdrawal trial in 171 individuals who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids. Methodological quality and risk of bias were difficult to assess from published information.\nObjective measures of airway function were reported in most trials but were often incomplete and reported at different time points. We found no difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) or forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted in any of the trials, although the quality of the evidence was low due to risks of bias within the included trials and low participant numbers. We are uncertain whether inhaled corticosteroids result in an improvement in exercise tolerance, bronchial hyperreactivity or exacerbations as the quality of the evidence was very low. Data from one trial suggested that inhaled corticosteroids may make little or no difference to quality of life (low-quality evidence).\nThree trials reported adverse effects, but the quality of the evidence is low and so we are uncertain whether inhaled corticosteroids increase the risk of adverse effects. However, one study did show that growth was adversely affected by high doses of inhaled corticosteroids.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from these trials is of low to very low quality and insufficient to establish whether inhaled corticosteroids are beneficial in cystic fibrosis, but withdrawal in those already taking them has been shown to be safe. There is some evidence they may cause harm in terms of growth. It has not been established whether long-term use is beneficial in reducing lung inflammation, which should improve survival, but it is unlikely this will be proven conclusively in a randomised controlled trial.\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 last search for evidence was on 19 November 2018." } ]
query-laysum	22203	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaws is among the most serious oral complications of head and neck cancer radiotherapy, arising from radiation-induced fibro-atrophic tissue injury, manifested by necrosis of osseous tissues and failure to heal, often secondary to operative interventions in the oral cavity. It is associated with considerable morbidity and has important quality of life ramifications. Since ORN is very difficult to treat effectively, preventive measures to limit the onset of this disease are needed; however, the effects of various preventive interventions has not been adequately quantified.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for preventing ORN of the jaws in adult patients with head and neck cancer undergoing curative or adjuvant (i.e. non-palliative) radiotherapy.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 November 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library (searched 5 November 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 November 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 5 November 2019), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) Ovid (1985 to 5 November 2019), Scopus (1966 to 5 November 2019), Proquest Dissertations and Theses International (1861 to 5 November 2019) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 5 November 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of adult patients 18 years or older with head and neck cancer who had undergone curative or adjuvant radiotherapy to the head and neck, who had received an intervention to prevent the onset of ORN. Eligible patients were those subjected to pre- or post-irradiation dental evaluation. Management of these patients was to be with interventions independent of their cancer therapy, including but not limited to local, systemic, or behavioural interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials from search results, assessed risk of bias, and extracted relevant data for inclusion in the review. Authors of included studies were contacted to request missing data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nFour studies were identified that met pre-determined eligibility criteria, evaluating a total of 342 adults. From the four studies, all assessed as at high risk of bias, three broad interventions were identified that may potentially reduce the risk of ORN development: one study showed no reduction in ORN when using platelet-rich plasma placed in the extraction sockets of prophylactically removed healthy mandibular molar teeth prior to radiotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 19.09; one trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Another study involved comparing fluoride gel and high-content fluoride toothpaste (1350 parts per million (ppm)) in prevention of post-radiation caries, and found no difference between their use as no cases of ORN were reported (one trial, 220 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The other two studies involved the use of perioperative hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy and antibiotics. One study showed that treatment with HBO caused a reduction in the development of ORN in comparison to patients treated with antibiotics following dental extractions (risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76; one trial, 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Another study found no difference between combined HBO and antibiotics compared to antibiotics alone prior to dental implant placement (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.16; one trial, 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAdverse effects of the different interventions were not reported clearly or were not important.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the suboptimal reporting and inadequate sample sizes of the included studies, evidence regarding the interventions evaluated by the trials included in this review is uncertain. More well-designed RCTs with larger samples are required to make conclusive statements regarding the efficacy of these interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The level of certainty we have in these findings is very low. This was due to high risk of bias, not all studies mentioning important details, and the small number of people studied in the four included trials." } ]
query-laysum	22204	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHealthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.\nSearch methods\nWe used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that:\n1. focus one’s attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);\n2. focus one’s attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);\n3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that\n4. combine two or more of the above.\nThe crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).\nMain results\nThis is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.\nThe number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.\nFocus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention\nFifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress.\nFocus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention\nForty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect.\nFocus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention\nSeven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.\nA combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention\nSeventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nFocus on stress versus other intervention type\nThree studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors.\nThe bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What can be done about stress among healthcare workers?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Stress among healthcare workers can be tackled at an organisational level, but also at an individual level. Stress management interventions at the individual-level aim to:" } ]
query-laysum	22205	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatorenal syndrome is a potentially reversible renal failure associated with severe liver disease. The disease is relatively common among people with decompensated cirrhosis. Terlipressin is a drug that increases the blood flow to the kidneys by constricting blood vessels. The previous version of this systematic review found a potential beneficial effect of terlipressin on mortality and renal function in people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of terlipressin versus placebo/no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome.\nSearch methods\nWe identified eligible trials through searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded, and manual searches until 21 November 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving participants with cirrhosis and type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome allocated to terlipressin versus placebo or no intervention. We allowed co-administration with albumin administered to both comparison groups.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from trial reports and undertook correspondence with the authors. Primary outcomes were mortality, hepatorenal syndrome, and serious adverse events. We conducted sensitivity analyses of RCTs in which participants received albumin, subgroup analyses of participants with type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome, and Trial Sequential Analyses to control random errors. We reported random-effects meta-analyses with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias based on the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. We graded the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs with a total of 534 participants with cirrhosis and ascites. One RCT had a low risk of bias for mortality and a high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes. All included trials had a high risk of bias for non-mortality outcomes. In total, 473 participants had type 1 hepatorenal syndrome. Seven RCTs specifically evaluated terlipressin and albumin. Terlipressin was associated with a beneficial effect on mortality when including all RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; 534 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 10.3 people; low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis including all RCTs also found a beneficial effect of terlipressin. Additional analyses showed a beneficial effect of terlipressin and albumin on reversal of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.82; 510 participants; 8 RCTs; NNTB 4 people; low-quality evidence). Terlipressin increased the risk of serious cardiovascular adverse events (RR 7.26, 95% CI 1.70 to 31.05; 234 participants; 4 RCTs), but it had no effect on the risk of serious adverse events when analysed as a composite outcome (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; 534 participants; 9 RCTs; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 24.5 people; low-quality evidence). Non-serious adverse events were mainly gastrointestinal, including diarrhoea (RR 5.76, 95% CI 2.19 to 15.15; 240 participants; low-quality evidence) and abdominal pain (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.43; 294 participants; low-quality evidence).\nWe identified one ongoing trial on terlipressin versus placebo in participants with cirrhosis, ascites, and hepatorenal syndrome type 1.\nThree RCTs reported funding from a pharmaceutical company. The remaining trials did not report funding or did not receive funding from pharmaceutical companies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests that terlipressin may be associated with beneficial effects on mortality and renal function in people with cirrhosis and type 1 hepatorenal syndrome, but it is also associated with serious adverse effects. We downgraded the strength of the evidence due to methodological issues including bias control, clinical heterogeneity, and imprecision. Consequently, additional evidence is needed.\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": "Three RCTs reported funding from a pharmaceutical company. The remaining trials did not report funding or did not receive funding from pharmaceutical companies." } ]
query-laysum	22206	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUse of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat chronic musculoskeletal conditions has become widely accepted because they can provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events. This review is an update of 'Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults', originally published in Issue 9, 2012.\nObjectives\nTo review the evidence from randomised, double-blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of topically applied NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and our own in-house database; the date of the last search was February 2016. We also searched the references lists of included studies and reviews, and sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' web sites.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind, active or inert carrier (placebo) controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain of moderate or severe intensity. Studies had to meet stringent quality criteria and there had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to carrier or other active treatment. We were particularly interested to compare different formulations (gel, cream, plaster) of individual NSAIDs. The primary outcome was 'clinical success', defined as at least a 50% reduction in pain, or an equivalent measure such as a 'very good' or 'excellent' global assessment of treatment, or 'none' or 'slight' pain on rest or movement, measured on a categorical scale.\nMain results\nWe identified five new studies for this update, which now has information from 10,857 participants in 39 studies, a 41% increase in participants from the earlier review; 32 studies compared a topical NSAID with carrier. All studies examined topical NSAIDs for treatment of osteoarthritis, and for pooled analyses studies were generally of moderate or high methodological quality, although we considered some at risk of bias from short duration and small size.\nIn studies lasting 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and topical ketoprofen were significantly more effective than carrier for reducing pain; about 60% of participants had much reduced pain. With topical diclofenac, the NNT for clinical success in six trials (2353 participants) was 9.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1 to 16) (moderate quality evidence). With topical ketoprofen, the NNT for clinical success in four trials (2573 participants) was 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3) (moderate quality evidence). There was too little information for analysis of other individual topical NSAIDs compared with carrier. Few trials compared a topical NSAID to an oral NSAID, but overall they showed similar efficacy (low quality evidence). These efficacy results were almost completely derived from people with knee osteoarthritis.\nThere was an increase in local adverse events (mostly mild skin reactions) with topical diclofenac compared with carrier or oral NSAIDs, but no increase with topical ketoprofen (moderate quality evidence). Reporting of systemic adverse events (such as gastrointestinal upsets) was poor, but where reported there was no difference between topical NSAID and carrier (very low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were infrequent and not different between topical NSAID and carrier (very low quality evidence).\nClinical success with carrier occurred commonly - in around half the participants in studies lasting 6 to 12 weeks. Both direct and indirect comparison of clinical success with oral placebo indicates that response rates with carrier (topical placebo) are about twice those seen with oral placebo.\nA substantial amount of data from completed, unpublished studies was unavailable (up to 6000 participants). To the best of our knowledge, much of this probably relates to formulations that have never been marketed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTopical diclofenac and topical ketoprofen can provide good levels of pain relief beyond carrier in osteoarthritis for a minority of people, but there is no evidence for other chronic painful conditions. There is emerging evidence that at least some of the substantial placebo effects seen in longer duration studies derive from effects imparted by the NSAID carrier itself, and that NSAIDs add to that.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Chronic musculoskeletal pain occurs in conditions like osteoarthritis. Pain is typically moderate or severe in intensity, lasting for three months or more.\nTopical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are applied to unbroken skin where it hurts in the form of a gel, cream, spray, or plaster. Topical NSAIDs penetrate the skin, enter tissues or joints, and reduce processes that cause pain in the tissue. Drug levels in the blood with topical NSAIDs are very much lower than with the same drug taken by mouth. This minimises the risk of harmful effects." } ]
query-laysum	22207	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTo support patient-centred care, healthcare organisations increasingly offer patients access to data stored in the institutional electronic health record (EHR).\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\n1. To assess the effects of providing adult patients with access to electronic health records (EHRs) alone or with additional functionalities on a range of patient, patient-provider, and health resource consumption outcomes, including patient knowledge and understanding, patient empowerment, patient adherence, patient satisfaction with care, adverse events, health-related quality of life, health-related outcomes, psychosocial health outcomes, health resource consumption, and patient-provider communication.\nSecondary objective\n1. To assess whether effects of providing adult patients with EHR access alone versus EHR access with additional functionalities differ among patient groups according to age, educational level, or different status of disease (chronic or acute).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus in June 2017 and in April 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials of EHR access with or without additional functionalities for adults with any medical condition.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies with 78 to 4500 participants and follow-up from 3 to 24 months. Nine studies assessed the effects of EHR with additional functionalities, each addressing a subset of outcomes sought by this review. Five studies focused on patients with diabetes mellitus, four on patients with specific diseases, and one on all patients. All studies compared EHR access alone or with additional functionalities plus usual care versus usual care only. No studies assessing the effects of EHR access alone versus EHR access with additional functionalities were identified. Interventions required a variety of data within the EHR, such as patient history, problem list, medication, allergies, and lab results. In addition to EHR access, eight studies allowed patients to share self-documented data, seven offered individualised disease management functions, seven offered educational disease-related information, six supported secure communication, and one offered preventive reminders.\nOnly two studies were at low or unclear risk of bias across domains. Meta-analysis could not be performed, as participants, interventions, and outcomes were too heterogeneous, and most studies presented results based on different adjustment methods or variables. The quality of evidence was rated as low or very low across outcomes. Overall differences between intervention and control groups, if any, were small. The relevance of any small effects remains unclear for most outcomes because in most cases, trial authors did not define a minimal clinically important difference. Overall, results suggest that the effects of EHR access alone and with additional functionalities are mostly uncertain when compared with usual care.\nPatient knowledge and understanding: very low-quality evidence is available from one study, so we are uncertain about effects of the intervention on patient knowledge about diabetes and blood glucose testing.\nPatient empowerment: low-quality evidence from three studies suggests that the intervention may have little or no effect on patient empowerment measures.\nPatient adherence: low-quality evidence from two studies suggests that the intervention may slightly improve adherence to the process of monitoring risk factors and preventive services. Effects on medication adherence are conflicting in two studies; this may or may not improve to a clinically relevant degree.\nPatient satisfaction with care: low-quality evidence from three studies suggests that the intervention may have little or no effect on patient satisfaction, with conflicting results.\nAdverse events: two small studies reported on mortality; one of these also reported on serious and other adverse events, but sample sizes were too small for small differences to be detected. Therefore, low-quality evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on mortality and other adverse events.\nHealth-related quality of life: only very low-quality evidence from one study is available. We are uncertain whether the intervention improves disease-specific quality of life of patients with asthma.\nHealth-related outcomes: low-quality evidence from eight studies suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on asthma control, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein or total cholesterol levels, body mass index or weight, or 10-year Framingham risk scores. Low-quality evidence from one study suggests that the composite scores of risk factors for diabetes mellitus may improve slightly with the intervention, but there is uncertainty about effects on ophthalmic medications or intraocular pressure.\nPsychosocial health outcomes: no study investigated psychosocial health outcomes in a more than anecdotal way.\nHealth resource consumption: low-quality evidence for adult patients in three studies suggests that there may be little to no effect of the intervention on different measures of healthcare use.\nPatient-provider communication: very low-quality evidence is available from a single small study, and we are uncertain whether the intervention improves communication measures, such as the number of messages sent.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of EHR access with additional functionalities in comparison with usual care for the most part are uncertain. Only adherence to the process of monitoring risk factors and providing preventive services as well as a composite score of risk factors for diabetes mellitus may improve slightly with EHR access with additional functionalities. Due to inconsistent terminology in this area, our search may have missed relevant studies.\nAs the overall quality of evidence is very low to low, future research is likely to change these results. Further trials should investigate the impact of EHR access in a broader range of countries and clinical settings, including more patients over a longer period of follow-up, as this may increase the likelihood of detecting effects of the intervention, should these exist. More studies should focus on assessing outcomes such as patient empowerment and behavioural outcomes, rather than concentrating on health-related outcomes alone. Future studies should distinguish between effects of EHR access only and effects of additional functionalities, and investigate the impact of mobile EHR tools. Future studies should include information on usage patterns, and consider the potential for widening health inequalities with implementation of EHR access. A taxonomy for EHR access and additional functionalities should be developed to promote consistency and comparability of outcome measures, and facilitate future reviews by better enabling cross-study comparisons.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What we found\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found 10 relevant studies, published between 2000 and 2016, that enrolled from 78 to 4500 adults. These studies took place in the USA (seven studies), Canada (two), and Japan (one). Five studies were conducted in doctors' offices and five in hospital clinics. People taking part in the studies were followed up for three months to two years. Two studies were funded in part by pharmaceutical companies.\nThe studies focused on patients with type 2 diabetes (five studies), asthma (one study), glaucoma (one study), congestive heart failure (one study), and hypertension (one study); one study focused on patients who visited their doctor for any reason.\nStudies compared usual care plus access to electronic health records against usual care alone. In nine studies, access to electronic health records came with extra services.\nWe could not combine study results because of differences in how studies were conducted, types of patients enrolled, and how results were measured, so we had to evaluate them separately." } ]
query-laysum	22208	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRetained placenta is a common complication of pregnancy affecting 1% to 6% of all births. If a retained placenta is left untreated, spontaneous delivery of the placenta may occur, but there is a high risk of bleeding and infection. Manual removal of the placenta (MROP) in an operating theatre under anaesthetic is the usual treatment, but is invasive and may have complications. An effective non-surgical alternative for retained placenta would potentially reduce the physical and psychological trauma of the procedure, and costs. It could also be lifesaving by providing a therapy for settings without easy access to modern operating theatres or anaesthetics. Injection of uterotonics into the uterus via the umbilical vein and placenta is an attractive low-cost option for this. This is an update of a review last published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo assess the use of umbilical vein injection (UVI) of saline solution with or without uterotonics compared to either expectant management or with an alternative solution or other uterotonic agent for retained placenta.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 June 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UVI of saline or other fluids (with or without uterotonics), either with expectant management or with an alternative solution or other uterotonic agent, in the management of retained placenta. We considered quasi-randomised, cluster-randomised, and trials reported only in abstract form.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and presented results using 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included 24 trials (n = 2348). All included trials were RCTs, one was quasi-randomised, and none were cluster-randomised. Risk of bias was variable across the included studies. We assessed certainty of evidence for four comparisons: saline versus expectant management, oxytocin versus expectant management, oxytocin versus saline, and oxytocin versus plasma expander. Evidence was moderate to very-low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias of included studies, imprecision, and inconsistency of effect estimates.\nSaline solution versus expectant management\nThere is probably little or no difference in the incidence of MROP between saline and expectant management (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.10; 5 studies, n = 445; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence for the following remaining primary outcomes was very-low certainty: severe postpartum haemorrhage 1000 mL or greater, blood transfusion, and infection. There were no events reported for maternal mortality or postpartum anaemia (24 to 48 hours postnatal). No studies reported addition of therapeutic uterotonics.\nOxytocin solution versus expectant management\nUVI of oxytocin solution might slightly reduce in the need for manual removal compared with expectant management (mean RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 7 studies, n = 546; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between the incidence of blood transfusion between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.38; 4 studies, n = 339; low-certainty evidence). There were no maternal deaths reported (2 studies, n = 93). Evidence for severe postpartum haemorrhage of 1000 mL or greater, additional uterotonics, and infection was very-low certainty. There were no events for postpartum anaemia (24 to 48 hours postnatal).\nOxytocin solution versus saline solution\nUVI of oxytocin solution may reduce the use of MROP compared with saline solution, but there was high heterogeneity (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 14 studies, n = 1370; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence). There were no differences between subgroups according to risk of bias or oxytocin dose for the outcome MROP. There may be little to no difference between groups in severe postpartum haemorrhage of 1000 mL or greater, blood transfusion, use of additional therapeutic uterotonics, and antibiotic use. There were no events for postpartum anaemia (24 to 48 hours postnatal) (very low-certainty evidence) and there was only one event for maternal mortality (low-certainty evidence).\nOxytocin solution versus plasma expander\nOne small study reported UVI of oxytocin compared with plasma expander (n = 109). The evidence was very unclear about any effect on MROP or blood transfusion between the two groups (very low-certainty evidence). No other primary outcomes were reported.\nFor other comparisons there were little to no differences for most outcomes examined. However, there was some evidence to suggest that there may be a reduction in MROP with prostaglandins in comparison to oxytocin (4 studies, n = 173) and ergometrine (1 study, n = 52), although further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nUVI of oxytocin solution is an inexpensive and simple intervention that can be performed when placental delivery is delayed. This review identified low-certainty evidence that oxytocin solution may slightly reduce the need for manual removal. However, there are little or no differences for other outcomes. Small studies examining injection of prostaglandin (such as dissolved misoprostol) into the umbilical vein show promise and deserve to be studied further.\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": "The placenta provides nourishment for the baby in the womb (uterus) through the umbilical cord. It usually comes out shortly after the baby. If the placenta remains in the womb (a 'retained placenta'), women have an increased risk of bleeding heavily (haemorrhage), infection, and very occasionally death. Manual removal of the placenta involves a doctor passing their hand through the vagina into the womb to remove the placenta. However, it requires an anaesthetic and can have side effects. Use of medicines injected into the placenta through blood vessels (veins) in the umbilical cord is an attractive alternative to remove the placenta." } ]
query-laysum	22209	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUrinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common hospital-acquired infection. The major associated cause is indwelling urethral catheters. Several measures have been introduced to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). One of these measures is the introduction of specialised urethral catheters that have been designed to reduce the risk of infection. These include antiseptic-coated and antimicrobial-impregnated catheters.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness of different types of indwelling urethral catheters in reducing the risk of UTI and to assess their impact on other outcomes in adults who require short-term urethral catheterisation in hospitals.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 9 September 2014). We also examined the bibliographies of relevant articles and contacted catheter manufacturer representatives for trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing types of indwelling urethral catheters for short-term catheterisation in hospitalised adults. 'Short-term' is defined as a duration of catheterisation which is intended to be less than or equal to 14 days.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or consultation with a third party. We processed data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwenty-six trials met the inclusion criteria involving 12,422 hospitalised adults in 25 parallel group trials, and 27,878 adults in one large cluster-randomised cross-over trial. No trials compared one antiseptic catheter versus another, nor an antimicrobial catheter versus another.\nAntiseptic-coated indwelling urethral catheters versus standard indwelling urethral catheters\nThe primary outcome, symptomatic CAUTI was reported in one large trial with a low risk of bias, comparing silver alloy hydrogel-coated latex catheter (antiseptic-coated) against a standard polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-coated latex catheter (control). The trial used a pragmatic, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-based definition for symptomatic CAUTI. For the comparison between silver alloy-coated catheter versus standard catheter, there was no significant difference in symptomatic CAUTI incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16).\nFor secondary outcomes, the included trials reported on two types of antiseptic catheters (coated with either silver oxide or silver alloy). For the outcome of bacteriuria, silver oxide catheters were not associated with any statistically significant reduction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.13). These catheters are no longer manufactured. Silver alloy catheters achieved a slight but statistically significant reduction in bacteriuria (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92). However, the one large trial with a low risk of bias did not support this finding (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16). The randomised cross-over trial of silver alloy catheters versus standard catheters was excluded from the pooled results because data were not available prior to crossover. The results of this trial showed less bacteriuria in the silver alloy catheter group.\nFor the outcome of discomfort whilst the catheter was in-situ, fewer patients with silver alloy catheters complained of discomfort compared with standard catheters (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96).\nAntimicrobial-impregnated indwelling urethral catheters versus standard indwelling urethral catheters\nThe primary outcome measure, symptomatic CAUTI was reported in one large trial with a low risk of bias, comparing nitrofurazone-impregnated silicone catheter (antimicrobial-impregnated) against a standard PTFE-coated latex catheter (control). The nitrofurazone catheter achieved a reduction in symptomatic CAUTI incidence which was of borderline statistical significance (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99).\nFor secondary outcomes, the included trials reported on two types of antimicrobial catheters (impregnated with either nitrofurazone or minocycline/rifampicin). Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters, compared with standard catheters, were found to lower the rate of bacteriuria in the antimicrobial group for both minocycline and rifampicin (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.73), and nitrofurazone (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). The minocycline and rifampicin catheter is no longer manufactured.\nFor the outcome of discomfort whilst the catheter was in-situ, more patients with nitrofurazone catheters complained of pain whilst the catheter was in-situ compared with standard catheters (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41). For the period after catheter removal, more patients with nitrofurazone catheters complained of pain than standard catheters (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.57).\nAntimicrobial-impregnated indwelling urethral catheters versus antiseptic-coated indwelling urethral catheters\nOne large trial compared antimicrobial-impregnated (nitrofurazone) catheters versus silver alloy-coated (antiseptic-coated) catheters. The results showed people were less likely to have a symptomatic CAUTI with nitrofurazone-impregnated catheters (228/2153, 10.6%) compared with silver alloy-coated catheters (263/2097, 12.5%), but this was of borderline statistical significance (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00). They did, however, have significantly less bacteriuria (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91),\nWhile the catheter was in-situ (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.70), and on removal (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.45), nitrofurazone catheters were associated with more discomfort compared with silver-coated catheters.\nOne type of standard indwelling urethral catheter versus another type of standard indwelling urethral catheter\nNone of the trials comparing standard catheters versus other types of standard catheters measured symptomatic CAUTI. In terms of reducing bacteriuria, individual trials were too small to show whether one type of standard catheter was superior to another type. For the outcome of urethral reactions, fully siliconised catheters appeared to be superior to latex-based catheters. However, the trials involved small numbers of participants. There were no statistically significant differences between the different catheters for all other outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSilver alloy-coated catheters were not associated with a statistically significant reduction in symptomatic CAUTI, and are considerably more expensive. Nitrofurazone-impregnated catheters reduced the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and bacteriuria, although the magnitude of reduction was low and hence may not be clinically important. However, they are more expensive than standard catheters. They are also more likely to cause discomfort than standard catheters.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The main findings of the review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Twenty-six trials were included in this systematic review involving 12,422 hospitalised adults in 25 parallel group trials, and 27,878 adults in one large cluster-randomised cross-over trial.The review of evidence from trials found that although antiseptic-coated (silver alloy) catheters reduced the number of bacteria in the urine, they did not reduce the number of UTIs caused by the presence of the catheter. Catheters coated with antimicrobials (antibiotics, nitrofurazone) designed to kill or stop the growth of bacteria may reduce both the number of bacteria in the urine as well as number of people having UTI caused by the presence of the catheter. However, the evidence is relatively weak, and any benefit is likely to be small and hence unlikely to be meaningful to either patients or clinicians." } ]
query-laysum	22210	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome are rare, severe cutaneous adverse reactions usually triggered by medications. In addition to tertiary-level supportive care, various systemic therapies have been used including glucocorticoids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIGs), cyclosporin, N-acetylcysteine, thalidomide, infliximab, etanercept, and plasmapheresis. There is an unmet need to understand the efficacy of these interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic therapies (medicines delivered orally, intramuscularly, or intravenously) for the treatment of SJS, TEN, and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to March 2021: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched five clinical trial registers, the reference lists of all included studies and of key review articles, and a number of drug manufacturer websites. We searched for errata or retractions of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational comparative studies of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of SJS, TEN, or SJS/TEN overlap syndrome. We included all systemic therapies studied to date and permitted comparisons between each therapy, as well as between therapy and placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were SJS/TEN-specific mortality and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of SJS/TEN therapy. Secondary outcomes included time to complete re-epithelialisation, intensive care unit length of stay, total hospital length of stay, illness sequelae, and other adverse effects attributed to systemic therapy. We rated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies with a total of 308 participants (131 males and 155 females) from seven countries. We included two studies in the quantitative meta-analysis.\nWe included three RCTs and six prospective, controlled observational studies. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 91. Most studies did not report study duration or time to follow-up. Two studies reported a mean SCORe of Toxic Epidermal Necrosis (SCORTEN) of 3 and 1.9. Seven studies did not report SCORTEN, although four of these studies reported average or ranges of body surface area (BSA) (means ranging from 44% to 51%). Two studies were set in burns units, two in dermatology wards, one in an intensive care unit, one in a paediatric ward, and three in unspecified inpatient units. Seven studies reported a mean age, which ranged from 29 to 56 years. Two studies included paediatric participants (23 children).\nWe assessed the results from one of three RCTs as low risk of bias in all domains, one as high, and one as some concerns. We judged the results from all six prospective observational comparative studies to be at a high risk of bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of serious risk of bias concerns and for imprecision due to small numbers of participants.\nThe interventions assessed included systemic corticosteroids, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, cyclosporin, thalidomide, N-acetylcysteine, IVIG, and supportive care. No data were available for the main comparisons of interest as specified in the review protocol: etanercept versus cyclosporin, etanercept versus IVIG, IVIG versus supportive care, IVIG versus cyclosporin, and cyclosporin versus corticosteroids.\nCorticosteroids versus no corticosteroids\nIt is uncertain if there is any difference between corticosteroids (methylprednisolone 4 mg/kg/day for two more days after fever had subsided and no new lesions had developed) and no corticosteroids on disease-specific mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 9.03; 2 studies; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to complete re-epithelialisation, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported.\nIVIG versus no IVIG\nIt is uncertain if there is any difference between IVIG (0.2 to 0.5 g/kg cumulative dose over three days) and no IVIG in risk of disease-specific mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.91); time to complete re-epithelialisation (mean difference (MD) −2.93 days, 95% CI −4.4 to −1.46); or length of hospital stay (MD −2.00 days, 95% CI −5.81 to 1.81). All results in this comparison were based on one study with 36 participants, and very low-certainty evidence. Adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported.\nEtanercept (TNF-alpha inhibitor) versus corticosteroids\nEtanercept (25 mg (50 mg if weight > 65 kg) twice weekly \"until skin lesions healed\") may reduce disease-specific mortality compared to corticosteroids (intravenous prednisolone 1 to 1.5 mg/kg/day \"until skin lesions healed\") (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.63; 1 study; 91 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, the CIs were consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. Serious adverse events, such as sepsis and respiratory failure, were reported in 5 of 48 participants with etanercept and 9 of 43 participants with corticosteroids, but it was not clear if they led to discontinuation of therapy. Time to complete re-epithelialisation and length of hospital stay were not reported.\nCyclosporin versus IVIG\nIt is uncertain if there is any difference between cyclosporin (3 mg/kg/day or intravenous 1 mg/kg/day until complete re-epithelialisation, then tapered off (10 mg/day reduction every 48 hours)) and IVIG (continuous infusion 0.75 g/kg/day for 4 days (total dose 3 g/kg) in participants with normal renal function) in risk of disease-specific mortality (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98, 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to complete re-epithelialisation, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported.\nNo studies measured intensive care unit length of stay.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared to corticosteroids, etanercept may result in mortality reduction. For the following comparisons, the certainty of the evidence for disease-specific mortality is very low: corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids, IVIG versus no IVIG and cyclosporin versus IVIG. There is a need for more multicentric studies, focused on the most important clinical comparisons, to provide reliable answers about the best treatments for SJS/TEN.\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 9 studies in 308 people (adults and a few children), which took place in India, Europe, China, and Taiwan. We found three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (a type of study where participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more treatment groups). The other six studies observed the effectiveness of a treatment compared to another, without randomly assigning participants to a treatment (observational study). Most patients in the studies (where reported) had a moderate severity of disease, with 44% to 51% of their body surface area affected by rash. Studies were set in burn units, intensive care units and inpatient hospital wards." } ]
query-laysum	22211	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe diagnosis of acute bronchitis is made on clinical grounds and a variety of clinical definitions have been used. There are no clearly effective treatments for the cough of acute bronchitis. Beta2-agonists are often prescribed, perhaps because clinicians suspect many patients also have reversible airflow restriction (as seen in asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)) contributing to the symptoms.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether beta2-agonists improve acute bronchitis symptoms in people with no underlying pulmonary disease (such as asthma, COPD or pulmonary fibrosis).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2015, Issue 5, MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2015), EMBASE (1974 to May 2015), Web of Science (2011 to May 2015) and LILACS (1982 to May 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated people (adults, or children over two years of age) with acute bronchitis or acute cough and without known pulmonary disease to beta2-agonist versus placebo, no treatment or alternative treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently selected outcomes and extracted data while blinded to study results. Two review authors independently assessed each trial for risk of bias. We analysed trials in children and adults separately.\nMain results\nTwo trials of moderate quality in children (n = 134) with no evidence of airflow restriction did not find any benefits from oral beta2-agonists. Five trials in adults (n = 418) had mixed results but overall summary statistics did not reveal any significant benefits from oral (three trials) nor from inhaled (two trials) beta2-agonists. Three studies with low-quality evidence demonstrated no significant differences in daily cough scores, nor in the percentage of adults still coughing after seven days (control group 71%; risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.18; 220 participants). In one trial, subgroups with evidence of airflow limitation had lower symptom scores if given beta2-agonists. The trials that noted quicker resolution of cough with beta2-agonists were those with a higher proportion of people wheezing at baseline. Low-quality evidence suggests that adults given beta2-agonists were more likely to report tremor, shakiness or nervousness (RR 7.94, 95% CI 1.17 to 53.94; 211 participants; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence to support the use of beta2-agonists in children with acute cough who do not have evidence of airflow restriction. There is also little evidence that the routine use of beta2-agonists is helpful for adults with acute cough. These agents may reduce symptoms, including cough, in people with evidence of airflow restriction. However, this potential benefit is not well supported by the available data and must be weighed against the adverse effects associated with their use.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our searches are current to May 2015. We found no new trials. In previous searches, we found seven randomised controlled trials that used beta2-agonist drugs for people with acute bronchitis. Two trials studied children aged one to 10 years (134 participants) and five were conducted in adults (418 participants). None of the studies reported receiving grants from drug-making companies to conduct the study, but people who work for a drug maker were listed as authors on reports from two trials and study drugs were supplied free of charge by the company in three trials." } ]
query-laysum	22212	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTreatment strategies for childhood cancer are improving, resulting in higher survival rates. However, the consequences of childhood cancer do not end with the successful completion of cancer treatment. Most patients will develop late effects after cessation of treatment. Severe fatigue is seen as a common and debilitating late effect in cancer survivors. Although most research on fatigue has been performed in patients after adult-onset cancer, our review focuses on fatigue after childhood cancer.\nObjectives\nTo estimate the prevalence of severe fatigue after treatment for childhood cancer. Secondary objectives are to describe the course of severe fatigue following cancer treatment and to examine risk factors for fatigue, or factors associated with it.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library 2019; issue 8 March 2019), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1945 to 8 March 2019), Embase/Ovid (from 1947 to 8 March 2019), reference lists of included articles and several conference proceedings from 2011 to 2018.\nSelection criteria\nObservational studies, randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials reporting on fatigue in participants after treatment for childhood cancer. Case series and case reports were not eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risks of bias. If the publication did not present the prevalence of severe fatigue, we contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nWe included 30 studies (18,682 participants in total). Eighteen studies contributed to the main objective and 22 studies contributed to the secondary objectives. We found substantial differences between studies in cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, age of participants, questionnaires used to assess fatigue, and sample size. All included studies scored at least one 'Risk of bias' item as unclear or high risk.\nWe identified both clinical and statistical heterogeneity and therefore could not pool results, so we present them descriptively. Eighteen studies (describing 14,573 survivors) reported the prevalence of severe fatigue, which ranged from 0% to 61.7%. In a subgroup of three studies including children aged up to 18 years at fatigue assessment (268 survivors), prevalence rates ranged from 6.7% to 12.5%. In comparison, in a subgroup of 12 studies including participants aged 16 and over (13,952 survivors), prevalence rates ranged from 4.4% to 61.7%. The prevalence of severe fatigue in a subgroup of survivors of haematological cancer was presented in seven studies and ranged from 1.8% to 35.9% (1907 survivors). Prevalence of severe fatigue in brain cancer survivors was presented in two studies (252 survivors) and was 14.6% and 21.1% respectively. One study presented a prevalence for bone cancer survivors of 0.0% (17 survivors). Four studies provided prevalence rates of severe fatigue in control groups of siblings or population-based controls, which ranged from 3.1% to 10.3%. In these four studies, survivors were more often fatigued than controls, but this difference was statistically significant in only two studies.\nStudies assessing risk and associated factors for fatigue were heterogeneous, and definitions of the factors under study were often inconsistent, with results therefore presented descriptively. They found that depression might be associated with fatigue. In contrast, age at diagnosis and education level did not seem to be associated with fatigue. We were unable to calculate any overall risk estimate for any of the reported risks and associated factors, because we could not conduct meta-analysis.\nOne study provided information about the course of fatigue over time, and found that over the course of 2.7 years, 32 of the 102 participants (31.4%) reported persistent severe fatigue.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is unclear how many childhood cancer survivors suffer from severe fatigue. This review encountered several difficulties. We found statistical and clinical heterogeneity and great variation in the reporting of possible risk and associated factors. The evidence in this review is therefore weak, and the exact prevalence of severe fatigue after treatment for childhood cancer remains to be determined. This is also the case for the course of severe fatigue following treatment and the strength of the relationship between fatigue and associated and risk factors. Despite these limitations, our review does provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature about severe fatigue after treatment for childhood cancer.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is up to date to March 2019.\nWe include 30 studies, describing 18,682 participants after treatment for childhood cancer. We found a lot of variation between studies in cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, age of participants, the questionnaires used to assess fatigue, and the size of the study." } ]
query-laysum	22213	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most common paediatric soft-tissue sarcoma and can emerge throughout the whole body. For patients with newly diagnosed RMS, prognosis for survival depends on multiple factors such as histology, tumour site, and extent of the disease. Patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis have impaired prognosis compared to those with localised disease. Appropriate staging at diagnosis therefore plays an important role in choosing the right treatment regimen for an individual patient.\nFluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is a functional molecular imaging technique that uses the increased glycolysis of cancer cells to visualise both structural information and metabolic activity. 18F-FDG-PET combined with computed tomography (CT) could help to accurately stage the extent of disease in patients with newly diagnosed RMS. In this review we aimed to evaluate whether 18F-FDG-PET could replace other imaging modalities for the staging of distant metastases in RMS.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging for the detection of bone, lung, and lymph node metastases in RMS patients at first diagnosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE in PubMed (from 1966 to 23 December 2020) and Embase in Ovid (from 1980 to 23 December 2020) for potentially relevant studies. We also checked the reference lists of relevant studies and review articles; scanned conference proceedings; and contacted the authors of included studies and other experts in the field of RMS for information about any ongoing or unpublished studies. We did not impose any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cross-sectional studies involving patients with newly diagnosed proven RMS, either prospective or retrospective, if they reported the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing lymph node involvement or bone metastases or lung metastases or a combination of these metastases. We included studies that compared the results of the 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging with those of histology or with evaluation by a multidisciplinary tumour board as reference standard.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessement according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). We analysed data for the three outcomes (nodal involvement and lung and bone metastases) separately. We used data from the 2 × 2 tables (consisting of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives) to calculate sensitivity and specificity in each study and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. We did not consider a formal meta-analysis to be relevant because of the small number of studies and substantial heterogeneity between studies.\nMain results\nTwo studies met our inclusion criteria. The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT was reported in both studies, which included a total of 36 participants. We considered both studies to be at high risk of bias for the domain reference standard. We considered one study to be at high risk of bias for the domain index test and flow and timing. Sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases was 100% in both studies (95% confidence interval (CI) for sensitivity was 29% to 100% in study one and 40% to 100% in study two; 95% CI for specificity was 83% to 100% in study one and 66% to 100% in study two). The reported sensitivity of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the detection of lung metastases was not calculated since only two participants in study two showed lung metastases, of which one was detected by 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Reported specificity was 96% in study one (95% CI 78% to 100%) and 100% (95% CI 72% to 100%) in study two. The reported sensitivity for the detection of nodal involvement was 100% (95% CI 63% to 100% in study one and 40% to 100% in study two); the reported specificity was 100% (95% CI 78% to 100%) in study one and 89% (95% CI 52% to 100%) in study two.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the detection of bone, lung, and lymph node metastases was reported in only two studies including a total of only 36 participants with newly diagnosed RMS. Because of the small number of studies (and participants), there is currently insufficient evidence to reliably determine the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the detection of distant metastases. Larger series evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the detection of metastases in patients with RMS are necessary.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How reliable are the results of the studies in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The main limitation of this review was that the findings were based on only two studies with a total of 36 participants and due to the design of the studies we considered them to be at high risk of bias on specific domains.\nIn the included studies, histopathological (microscopic examination of tissue) confirmation was considered the optimal reference standard (the best available method to determine whether the condition is present or absent) to determine RMS metastases from other lesions; however, this was not done in all participants. In cases where no histopathological confirmation was done, the judgement of a multidisciplinary tumour board was considered the reference standard. Judgement of the multidisciplinary tumour boards was partly based on 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging results, potentially resulting in overestimation of sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, in one included study the participants all underwent the same diagnostic procedures, whereas in the other study this was not the case for all participants; this study did not clearly define what was considered a positive test result for 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging. This might have biased the results." } ]
query-laysum	22214	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSeveral treatment options are available for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), including pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), drug therapy and surgery. Problems exist such as adherence to PFMT regimens, side effects linked to drug therapy and the risks associated with surgery. We have evaluated an alternative treatment, electrical stimulation (ES) with non-implanted devices, which aims to improve pelvic floor muscle function to reduce involuntary urine loss.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices, alone or in combination with other treatment, for managing stress urinary incontinence or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence in women. Among the outcomes examined were costs and cost-effectiveness.\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, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearches of journals and conference proceedings (searched 27 February 2017). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and undertook separate searches to identify studies examining economic data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ES with non-implanted devices compared with any other treatment for SUI in women. Eligible trials included adult women with SUI or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). We excluded studies of women with urgency-predominant MUI, urgency urinary incontinence only, or incontinence associated with a neurologic condition. We would have included economic evaluations had they been conducted alongside eligible trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We would have performed economic evaluations using the approach recommended by Cochrane Economic Methods.\nMain results\nWe identified 56 eligible trials (3781 randomised participants). Eighteen trials did not report the primary outcomes of subjective cure, improvement of SUI or incontinence-specific quality of life (QoL). The risk of bias was generally unclear, as most trials provided little detail when reporting their methods. We assessed 25% of the included trials as being at high risk of bias for a variety of reasons, including industry funding and baseline differences between groups. We did not identify any economic evaluations.\nFor subjective cure of SUI, we found moderate-quality evidence that ES is probably better than no active treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.02). We found a similar result for cure or improvement of SUI (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.11), but the quality of evidence was lower. We are very uncertain if there is a difference between ES and sham treatment in terms of subjective cure because of the very low quality of evidence (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.38 to 12.73). For subjective cure or improvement, ES may be better than sham treatment (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.07). The effect estimate was 660/1000 women cured/improved with ES compared to 382/1000 with no active treatment (95% CI 538 to 805 women); and for sham treatment, 402/1000 women cured/improved with ES compared to 198/1000 with sham treatment (95% CI 202 to 805 women).\nLow-quality evidence suggests that there may be no difference in cure or improvement for ES versus PFMT (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03), PFMT plus ES versus PFMT alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.28) or ES versus vaginal cones (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21).\nElectrical stimulation probably improves incontinence-specific QoL compared to no treatment (moderate quality evidence) but there may be little or no difference between electrical stimulation and PFMT (low quality evidence). It is uncertain whether adding electrical stimulation to PFMT makes any difference in terms of quality of life, compared with PFMT alone (very low quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between electrical stimulation and vaginal cones in improving incontinence-specific QoL (low quality evidence). The impact of electrical stimulation on subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL, compared with vaginal cones, PFMT plus vaginal cones, or drugs therapy, is uncertain (very low quality evidence).\nIn terms of subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL, the available evidence comparing ES versus drug therapy or PFMT plus vaginal cones was very low quality and inconclusive. Similarly, comparisons of different types of ES to each other and of ES plus surgery to surgery are also inconclusive in terms of subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL (very low-quality evidence).\nAdverse effects were rare: in total nine of the women treated with ES in the trials reported an adverse effect. We identified insufficient evidence to compare the risk of adverse effects in women treated with ES compared to any other treatment. We were unable to identify any economic data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence base indicated that electrical stimulation is probably more effective than no active or sham treatment, but it is not possible to say whether ES is similar to PFMT or other active treatments in effectiveness or not. Overall, the quality of the evidence was too low to provide reliable results. Without sufficiently powered trials measuring clinically important outcomes, such as subjective assessment of urinary incontinence, we cannot draw robust conclusions about the overall effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of electrical stimulation for stress urinary incontinence in women.\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 cure or improvement of SUI, electrical stimulation was probably better than no active or sham treatment. There was not enough evidence to say whether it was any better than pelvic floor muscle training for curing or improving SUI, or for quality of life. Adding electrical stimulation to pelvic floor muscle training may not make much difference to cure or improvement of SUI. It is uncertain whether it offers any improvement in quality of life compared with pelvic floor muscle training.\nWe found that few women reported adverse effects with electrical stimulation, but there was not enough reliable evidence comparing electrical stimulation to other treatments to know more about its safety.\nThere was not enough evidence comparing electrical stimulation to other existing treatments such as drug therapy, pelvic floor muscle training plus vaginal cones, surgery, or different forms of electrical stimulation, to provide evidence-based guidance on which would be better, and for which women, in curing or improving SUI or in improving quality of life. There was no information from these studies to judge value for money." } ]
query-laysum	22215	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nClinical trials and observational data have variously shown a protective, harmful or neutral effect of antihypertensives on cognitive function. In theory, withdrawal of antihypertensives could improve cerebral perfusion and reduce or delay cognitive decline. However, it is also plausible that withdrawal of antihypertensives may have a detrimental effect on cognition through increased incidence of stroke or other vascular events.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of complete withdrawal of at least one antihypertensive medication on incidence of dementia, cognitive function, blood pressure and other safety outcomes in cognitively intact and cognitive impaired adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP on 12 December 2015. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) provided they compared withdrawal of antihypertensive medications with continuation of the medications and included an outcome measure assessing cognitive function or a clinical diagnosis of dementia. We included studies with healthy participants, but we also included studies with participants with all grades of severity of existing dementia or cognitive impairment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations identified by the search for eligibility, retrieving full texts where needed to identify studies for inclusion, with any disagreement resolved by involvement of a third author. Data were extracted independently on primary and secondary outcomes. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nThe primary outcome measures of interest were changes in global and specific cognitive function and incidence of dementia; secondary outcomes included change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mortality, adverse events (including cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and falls) and adherence to withdrawal. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs investigating withdrawal of antihypertensives in 2490 participants. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity between the included studies, therefore we did not combine data for our primary outcome. Overall, the quality of included studies was high and the risk of bias was low. Neither study investigated incident dementia.\nOne study assessed withholding previously prescribed antihypertensive drugs for seven days following acute stroke. Cognition was assessed using telephone Mini-Mental State Examination (t-MMSE) and Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M) at 90 days as a secondary outcome. The t-MMSE score was a mean of 1.0 point higher in participants who withdrew antihypertensive medications compared to participants who continued them (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 1.65; 1784 participants) and the TICS-M was a mean of 2.10 points higher (95% CI 0.69 to 3.51; 1784 participants). However, in both cases the evidence was of very low quality downgraded due to risk of bias, indirectness and evidence from a single study. The other study was community based and included participants with mild cognitive impairment. Drug withdrawal was for 16 weeks. Cognitive performance was assessed using a composite of at least five out of six cognitive tests. There was no evidence of a difference comparing participants who withdrew antihypertensive medications and participants who continued (mean difference 0.02 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 351 participants). This evidence was of low quality and was downgraded due to risk of bias and evidence from single study.\nIn one study, the systolic blood pressure after seven days of withdrawal was 9.5 mmHg higher in the intervention compared to the control group (95% CI 7.43 to 11.57; 2095 participants) and diastolic blood pressure was 5.1 mmHg higher (95% CI 3.86 to 6.34; 2095 participants). This evidence was low quality, downgraded due to indirectness, because the data must be interpreted in the context of the wider study looking at glyceryl trinitrate administration or not, and evidence from a single study. In the other study, systolic blood pressure increased by 7.4 mmHg in the withdrawal group compared to the control group (95% CI 7.08 to 7.72; 356 participants) and diastolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mmHg (95% CI 2.42 to 2.78; 356 participants). This was moderate quality evidence, downgraded as evidence was from a single study. We combined data for mortality and cardiovascular events. There was no clear evidence that antihypertensive medication withdrawal affected adverse events, although there was a possible trend to increased cardiovascular events in the large post-stroke study (pooled mortality risk ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.08; 2485 participants; and cardiovascular events risk ratio 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.72). Certain prespecified outcomes of interest (falls, hospitalisation) were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of withdrawing antihypertensive medications on cognition or prevention of dementia are uncertain. There was a signal of a positive effect in one study looking at withdrawal after acute stroke but these results are unlikely to be generalisable to non-stroke settings and were not a primary outcome of the study. Withdrawing antihypertensive drugs was associated with increased blood pressure. It is unlikely to increase mortality at three to four months' follow-up, although there was a signal from one large study looking at withdrawal after stroke that withdrawal was associated an increase in cardiovascular events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "At present, there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove effects of stopping blood pressure medicines on memory and thinking." } ]
query-laysum	22216	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWomen who carry a pathogenic mutation in either a BRCA1 DNA repair associated or BRCA2 DNA repair associated (BRCA1 or BRCA2) gene have a high lifetime risk of developing breast and tubo-ovarian cancer. To manage this risk women may choose to undergo risk-reducing surgery to remove breast tissue, ovaries, and fallopian tubes. Surgery should increase survival, but can impact women's lives adversely at the psychological and psychosexual levels. Interventions to facilitate psychological adjustment and improve quality of life post risk-reducing surgery are needed.\nObjectives\nTo examine psychosocial interventions in female BRCA carriers who have undergone risk-reducing surgery and to evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions on psychological adjustment and quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science up to April 2019 and Scopus up to January 2018. We also handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-randomised studies (NRS), prospective and retrospective cohort studies and interventional studies using baseline and postintervention analyses in female BRCA carriers who have undergone risk-reducing surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility studies for inclusion in the review. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe screened 4956 records from the searches, selecting 34 unique studies for full-text scrutiny, of which two met the inclusion criteria: one RCT and one NRS. The included studies assessed 113 female BRCA carriers who had risk-reducing surgery, but there was attrition, and outcome data were not available for all participants at final study assessments. We assessed the RCT as at a high risk of bias whilst the NRS did not have a control group. Our GRADE assessment of the studies was very low-certainty due to the paucity of data and methodological shortcomings of the studies. The primary outcome of quality of life was only measured in the RCT and that was specific to the menopause. Both studies reported on psychological distress and sexual function. Neither study measured body image, perhaps because this is most often associated with risk-reducing mastectomy rather than oophorectomy.\nThe RCT (66 participants recruited with 48 followed to 12 months) assessed the short- and long-term effects of an eight-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) training programme on quality of life, sexual functioning, and sexual distress in female BRCA carriers (n = 34) in a specialised family cancer clinic in the Netherlands compared to female BRCA carriers (n = 32) who received usual care. Measurements on the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MENQOL) showed some improvement at 3 and 12 months compared to the usual care group. At 3 months the mean MENQOL scores were 3.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 3.9) and 3.8 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.2) for the MBSR and usual care groups respectively, whilst at 12 months the corresponding values were 3.6 (95% CI 3.1 to 4.0) and 3.9 (95% CI 3.5 to 4.4) (1 study; 48 participants followed up at 12 months). However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the very low-certainty of the evidence, where a lower score is better. Other outcome measures on the Female Sexual Function Index and the Female Sexual Distress Scale showed no significant differences between the two groups. Our GRADE assessment of the evidence was very low-certainty due to the lack of blinding of participants and personnel, attrition bias and self-selection (as only one-third of eligible women chose to participate in the study) and serious imprecision due to the small sample size and wide 95% CI.\nThe NRS comprised 37 female BRCA carriers selected from three Boston-area hospitals who had undergone a novel sexual health intervention following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) without a history of tubo-ovarian cancer. The intervention consisted of targeted sexual-health education, body awareness and relaxation training, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy strategies, followed by two sessions of tailored telephone counselling. This was a single-arm study without a control group. Our GRADE assessment of the evidence was very low-certainty, and as there was no comparison group in the included study, we could not estimate a relative effect. The study reported change in psychosexual adjustment from baseline to postintervention (median 2.3 months) using measures of Female Sexual Function Index (n = 34), which yielded change with a mean of 3.91, standard deviation (SD) 9.12, P = 0.018 (1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Brief Symptom Inventory, Global Severity Index yielded a mean change of 3.92, SD 5.94, P < 0.001. The Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale yielded change with a mean of 12.14, SD 20.56, P < 0.001. The Sexual Knowledge Scale reported mean change of 1.08, SD 1.50, P < 0.001 (n = 36). Participant satisfaction was measured by questionnaire, and 100% participants reported that they enjoyed taking part in the psychoeducation group and felt \"certain\" or \"very certain\" that they had learned new skills to help them cope with the sexual side effects of RRSO.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of psychosocial interventions on quality of life and emotional well-being in female BRCA carriers who undergo risk-reducing surgery is uncertain given the very low methodological quality in the two studies included in the review. The absence of such interventions highlights the need for partnership between researchers and clinicians in this specific area to take forward the patient-reported outcomes and develop interventions to address the psychosocial issues related to risk-reducing surgery in female BRCA carriers, particularly in this new era of genomics, where testing may become more mainstream and many more women are identified as gene carriers.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The certainty (quality) of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, with only one randomised controlled trial and one non-randomised study that had no comparator included in the review. Both studies involved small numbers of women." } ]
query-laysum	22217	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLeg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur below the knee but above the foot. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin, occurring as a result of venous insufficiency, where the flow of blood through the veins is impaired; they commonly arise due to blood clots and varicose veins. Compression therapy, using bandages or stockings, is the primary treatment for venous leg ulcers. Wound cleansing can be used to remove surface contaminants, bacteria, dead tissue and excess wound fluid from the wound bed and surrounding skin, however, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of cleansing and the best method or solution to use.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of wound cleansing, wound cleansing solutions and wound cleansing techniques for treating venous leg ulcers.\nSearch methods\nIn September 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or RCTs comparing different wound cleansing solutions, or different wound cleansing techniques.\nData collection and analysis\nWe screened studies for their appropriateness for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and used GRADE methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. Two review authors undertook these tasks independently, using predetermined criteria. We contacted study authors for missing data where possible.\nMain results\nWe included four studies with a total of 254 participants. All studies included comparisons between different types of cleansing solutions, and three of these reported our primary outcomes of complete wound healing or change in ulcer size over time, or both. Two studies reported the secondary outcome, pain. One study (27 participants), which compared polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) solution with saline solution for cleansing venous leg ulcers, did not report any of the review's primary or secondary outcomes. We did not identify any studies that compared cleansing with no cleansing, or that explored comparisons between different cleansing techniques.\nOne study (61 participants) compared aqueous oxygen peroxide with sterile water. We are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to the number of wounds completely healed after 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 3.20). Similarly, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to change in ulcer size after eight weeks of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -1.38 cm2, 95% CI -4.35 to 1.59 cm2). Finally, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to pain reduction, assessed after eight weeks of follow-up using a 0 to 100 pain rating, (MD 3.80, 95% CI -10.83 to 18.43). The evidence for these outcomes is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision; for the pain outcome we also downgraded for indirectness).\nAnother study (40 participants) compared propyl betaine and polihexanide with a saline solution. The authors did not present the raw data in the study report so we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of the data. We are uncertain whether propyl betaine and polihexanide make any difference to the number of wounds completely healed, change in ulcer size over time, or wound pain reduction. The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision).\nThe final study (126 participants) compared octenidine dihydrochloride/phenoxyethanol (OHP) with Ringer's solution. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of wounds healed (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72) or to the change in ulcer size over time (we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of available data). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision).\nNone of the studies reported patient preference, ease of use of the method of cleansing, cost or health-related quality of life. In one study comparing propyl betaine and polihexanide with saline solution the authors do not report any adverse events occurring. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of adverse events compared with Ringer's solution (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.14). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently a lack of RCT evidence to guide decision making about the effectiveness of wound cleansing compared with no cleansing and the optimal approaches to cleansing of venous leg ulcers. From the four studies identified, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the use of PHMB solution compared with saline solution; aqueous oxygen peroxide compared with sterile water; propyl betaine and polihexanide compared with a saline solution; or OHP compared with Ringer's solution makes any difference in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Evidence from three of the studies is of very low certainty, due to study limitations and imprecision. One study did not present data for the primary or secondary outcomes. Further well-designed studies that address important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes may be important, based on the clinical and patient priority of this uncertainty.\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": "Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that develop below the knee, usually because blood flow is poor in the lower leg. This can occur because of blockages, for example when small blood clots form in the veins. It can also happen when the valves (flaps) in the veins that prevent blood from flowing backwards stop working properly. Poor blood flow damages the skin and tissue, and creates venous leg ulcers.\nUlcers are unsightly and may become painful or infected. On average, ulcers take from six to nine months to heal. However, some ulcers can take years to heal, and a small number never do. Once ulcers have healed, they can reoccur.\nThe main treatment for venous leg ulcers is to use bandages or stockings that compress the leg (compression therapy), to increase blood flow in the veins. It is also thought to be important to clean the wound. Different types of cleaning solutions can be used, including: normal saline; water; antiseptics (solutions that stop or slow down the growth of micro-organisms such as bacteria); detergents (solutions that remove bacteria and dirt); or disinfectants (solutions such as bleach, that kill micro-organisms).\nCleaning solutions can be applied to the ulcer using a swab (similar to a cotton bud), a syringe with a needle, or a spray canister. Ulcers can also be bathed in the cleaning solution, using a basin or bucket, or during a shower. Cleaning can cause discomfort, and may be painful." } ]
query-laysum	22218	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering disease. Oral steroids are the standard treatment. We have updated this review, which was first published in 2002, because several new treatments have since been tried.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of treatments for bullous pemphigoid.\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches of the following databases to November 2021: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched five trial databases to January 2022, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nRCTs of treatments for immunofluorescence-confirmed bullous pemphigoid.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors, working independently, evaluated the studies against the review's inclusion criteria and extracted data from included studies. Using GRADE methodology, we assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in each comparison. Our primary outcomes were healing of skin lesions and mortality.\nMain results\nWe identified 14 RCTs (1442 participants). The main treatment modalities assessed were oral steroids, topical steroids, and the oral anti-inflammatory antibiotic doxycycline. Most studies reported mortality but adverse events and quality of life were not well reported. We decided to look at the primary outcomes 'disease control' and 'mortality'.\nAlmost all studies investigated different comparisons; two studies were placebo-controlled. The results are therefore based on a single study for each comparison except azathioprine. Most studies involved only small numbers of participants. We assessed the risk of bias for all key outcomes as having 'some concerns' or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information.\nClobetasol propionate cream versus oral prednisone\nCompared to oral prednisone, clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body probably increases skin healing at day 21 (risk ratio (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.13; 1 study, 341 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Skin healing at 21 days was seen in 99.8% of participants assigned to clobetasol and 92.4% of participants assigned to prednisone. Clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body compared to oral prednisone may reduce mortality at one year (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; 1 study, 341 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death occurred in 26.5% (45/170) of participants assigned to clobetasol and 36.3% (62/171) of participants assigned to oral prednisone. This study did not measure quality of life. Clobetasol propionate cream may reduce risk of severe complications by day 21 compared with oral prednisone (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86; 1 study, 341 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nMild clobetasol propionate cream regimen (10 to 30 g/day) versus standard clobetasol propionate cream regimen (40 g/day)\nA mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen probably does not change skin healing at day 21 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 1 study, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Both groups showed complete healing of lesions at day 21 in 98% participants. A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen may not change mortality at one year (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32; 1 study, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence), which occurred in 118/312 (37.9%) participants. This study did not measure quality of life. A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen may not change adverse events at one year (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 309 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nDoxycycline versus prednisolone\nCompared to prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg/day), doxycycline (200 mg/day) induces less skin healing at six weeks (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92; 1 study, 213 participants; high-certainty evidence). Complete skin healing was reported in 73.8% of participants assigned to doxycycline and 91.1% assigned to prednisolone. Doxycycline compared to prednisolone probably decreases mortality at one year (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 14; 1 study, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mortality occurred in 2.4% (3/132) of participants with doxycycline and 9.7% (11/121) with prednisolone. Compared to prednisolone, doxycycline improved quality of life at one year (mean difference 1.8 points lower, which is more favourable on the Dermatology Life Quality Index, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.58 lower; 1 study, 234 participants; high-certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to prednisolone probably reduces severe or life-threatening treatment-related adverse events at one year (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99; 1 study, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nPrednisone plus azathioprine versus prednisone\nIt is unclear whether azathioprine plus prednisone compared to prednisone alone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from two trials (98 participants). These studies did not measure quality of life. Adverse events were reported in a total of 20/48 (42%) participants assigned to azathioprine plus prednisone and 15/44 (34%) participants assigned to prednisone.\nNicotinamide plus tetracycline versus prednisone\nIt is unclear whether nicotinamide plus tetracycline compared to prednisone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from one trial (18 participants). This study did not measure quality of life. Fewer adverse events were reported in the nicotinamide group.\nMethylprednisolone plus azathioprine versus methylprednisolone plus dapsone\nIt is unclear whether azathioprine plus methylprednisolone compared to dapsone plus methylprednisolone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from one trial (54 participants). This study did not measure quality of life. A total of 18 adverse events were reported in the azathioprine group and 13 in the dapsone group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nClobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body is probably similarly effective as, and may cause less mortality than, oral prednisone for treating bullous pemphigoid. Lower-dose clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body is probably similarly effective as standard-dose clobetasol propionate cream and has similar mortality. Doxycycline is less effective but causes less mortality than prednisolone for treating bullous pemphigoid. Other treatments need further investigation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is bullous pemphigoid?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Bullous pemphigoid is the most common autoimmune blistering disease. In autoimmune diseases, the body's immune system mistakes its own tissues as foreign and attacks them. In bullous pemphigoid, this causes blisters on the skin. Bullous pemphigoid usually occurs in the elderly, but may also affect younger people." } ]
query-laysum	22219	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFor patients with asymptomatic, incurable, metastatic colorectal cancer, palliative, systemic treatment can be started immediately, or can be delayed until disease-related symptoms occur. How the potential survival benefit of starting palliative, systemic treatment immediately after diagnosis weighs up against the potential side effects is currently under debate, and was investigated in this review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of immediate versus delayed chemotherapy, with or without targeted therapy, on overall survival, toxicity, quality of life, progression-free survival, and compliance with chemotherapy for individuals with asymptomatic, metastatic, incurable colorectal cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 8, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from inception to 23 August 2018. We did not apply limitations based on language or date of publication. We searched the reference lists of all included studies to identify trials that may not have been identified from the electronic searches.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials evaluating immediate versus delayed chemotherapy in persons with asymptomatic, metastatic, incurable colorectal cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nWe applied standard methodological procedures, according to the recommendations of Cochrane and Cochrane Colorectal Cancer. Two review authors independently reviewed the studies identified by literature searches, selected relevant trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias, Review Manager 5 software for meta-analysis, GRADE methods to evaluate the quality of the evidence, and GRADEpro GDT software to develop a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included three randomised controlled trials (351 participants) investigating immediate versus delayed chemotherapy in people diagnosed with asymptomatic, metastatic, incurable colorectal cancer. Giving immediate versus delayed chemotherapy may make little or no difference to overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.46; 3 studies, 351 persons; low-quality evidence). For toxicity, giving immediate versus delayed chemotherapy may make little or no difference to the risk of grade 3 or 4 nausea and vomiting (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.25; 2 studies, 140 persons; very low-quality evidence), stomatitis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.55; 2 studies, 140 persons; very low-quality evidence), or diarrhoea (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.40; 2 studies, 140 persons, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether delayed chemotherapy made a difference to quality of life (very low-quality evidence), progression-free survival (low-quality evidence), or compliance with chemotherapy (low-quality evidence), as we had insufficient data to pool for these outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on a limited number of trials, very sparse data, and uncertainty of the evidence, this review was unable to establish whether there was a difference in overall survival or other clinically relevant outcomes, between immediate or delayed chemotherapy in persons with metastatic, incurable, colorectal cancer. The results should be interpreted with caution.\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 three randomised clinical trials. In these trials, people with metastatic and incurable colorectal cancer, without symptoms, received chemotherapy straight away (standard group) or their chemotherapy was delayed (intervention group). There were a total of 176 participants In the standard groups and 175 in the intervention groups." } ]
query-laysum	22220	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSedation reduces patient levels of anxiety and stress, facilitates the delivery of care and ensures safety. Alpha-2 agonists have a range of effects including sedation, analgesia and antianxiety. They sedate, but allow staff to interact with patients and do not suppress respiration. They are attractive alternatives for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of alpha-2 agonists for sedation of more than 24 hours, compared with traditional sedatives, in mechanically-ventilated critically ill patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 10, 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 9 October 2014), CINAHL (1982 to 9 October 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (1982 to 9 October 2014), ISI Web of Science (1987 to 9 October 2014), Chinese Biological Medical Database (1978 to 9 October 2014) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1979 to 9 October 2014), the World Health Organization international clinical trials registry platform (to 9 October 2014), Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of controlled trials active registers (to 9 October 2014), the ClinicalTrials.gov database (to 9 October 2014), the conference proceedings citation index (to 9 October 2014) and the reference lists of included studies and previously published meta-analyses and systematic reviews for relevant studies. We imposed no language restriction.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing alpha-2 agonists (clonidine or dexmedetomidine) versus alternative sedatives for long-term sedation (more than 24 hours) during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We performed meta-analyses when more than three studies were included, and selected a random-effects model due to expected clinical heterogeneity. We calculated the geometric mean difference for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We described the effects by values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We considered two-sided P < 0.05 to be statistically significant.\nMain results\nSeven studies, covering 1624 participants, met the inclusion criteria. All included studies investigated adults and compared dexmedetomidine with traditional sedatives, including propofol, midazolam and lorazepam. Compared with traditional sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the geometric mean duration of mechanical ventilation by 22% (95% CI 10% to 33%; four studies, 1120 participants, low quality evidence), and consequently the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) by 14% (95% CI 1% to 24%; five studies, 1223 participants, very low quality evidence). There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine decreased the risk of delirium (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; seven studies, 1624 participants, very low quality evidence) as results were consistent with both no effect and appreciable benefit. Only one study assessed the risk of coma, but lacked methodological reliability (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86, very low quality evidence). Of all the adverse events included, the most commonly reported one was bradycardia, and we observed a doubled (111%) increase in the incidence of bradycardia (RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.20; six studies, 1587 participants, very low quality evidence). Our meta-analysis provided no evidence that dexmedetomidine had any impact on mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24; six studies, 1584 participants, very low quality evidence). We observed high levels of heterogeneity in risk of delirium (I² = 70%), but due to the limited number of studies we were unable to determine the source of heterogeneity through subgroup analyses or meta-regression. We judged six of the seven studies to be at high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this review, we found no eligible studies for children or for clonidine. Compared with traditional sedatives, long-term sedation using dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. There was no evidence for a beneficial effect on risk of delirium and the heterogeneity was high. The evidence for risk of coma was inadequate. The most common adverse event was bradycardia. No evidence indicated that dexmedetomidine changed mortality. The general quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due to high risks of bias, serious inconsistency and imprecision, and strongly suspected publication bias. Future studies could pay more attention to children and to using clonidine.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Compared with traditional sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the breathing support time by approximately one-fifth, and the length of stay time in ICU by one-seventh. Dexmedetomidine was at least as effective as traditional sedatives for producing sedation and maintaining a light sedation level. There was no clear evidence in support of dexmedetomidine reducing the risk of delirium (a kind of acute confusion state), as results were consistent with both no effect and appreciable benefit. We had insufficient information to draw conclusions about reducing the risk of coma. Dexmedetomidine doubled the incidence of slow heartbeat, which was the most commonly reported adverse event. Our review provides no evidence that dexmedetomidine changed the overall death rate." } ]
query-laysum	22221	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory joint disease. Leflunomide is one of the more recent oral agents, classified as a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). It has a different mechanism of action than other existing DMARDs.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and toxicity of leflunomide (monotherapy or combined with another DMARD) compared to placebo or other DMARDs in the treatment of RA.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents for trials (to June 2008). We also handsearched reference lists and consulted content experts.\nSelection criteria\nTwo independent authors selected the trials that met predetermined inclusion criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed methodologic quality using standardized forms.\nMain results\nThirty-three trials were included, compared with six trials in the first review. The trials compared the efficacy and safety of leflunomide monotherapy with placebo or another DMARD; leflunomide combined with another DMARD (biologic or non-biologic) with DMARD monotherapy; and for different dosages of leflunomide. The ACR20 improvement criteria, demonstrated a 28% absolute difference in improvement in favour of leflunomide compared to placebo. There was no difference in ACR20 response rate between patients treated with leflunomide and sulfasalazine (SSZ) or methotrexate (MTX), at six and 12 months. Other clinical and radiological outcomes were improved significantly in the leflunomide group compared to placebo but were not different from SSZ or MTX. The efficacy of leflunomide combined with MTX was superior to MTX alone. On the other hand, leflunomide plus SSZ was not better than SSZ alone. Half-dose or weekly administration of leflunomide was shown to be as efficacious as regular doses (20 mg/day).\nWithdrawals due to adverse events were 10% greater with leflunomide than placebo. Important adverse events included gastrointestinal symptoms, elevated liver function tests, alopecia, allergic reactions and rashes, and infections. Overall, adverse events and withdrawals with leflunomide monotherapy were not significantly different from SSZ or MTX. However, adverse events were reported more frequently in leflunomide plus MTX than with MTX but withdrawal rates were not significantly different.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLeflunomide appears to improve all clinical outcomes and delay radiologic progression at both six and 12 months of treatment compared to placebo. Its efficacy and adverse events are comparable to MTX, SSZ, and cyclosporin A up to two years of treatment. Combined leflunomide and MTX was more efficacious than MTX alone up to three years of treatment and the adverse events did not increase. Different dosages of leflunomide were similar regarding their effectiveness and toxicity.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"ACR 50\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "(number of tender or swollen joints and other outcomes such as pain and disability).\n- 19 people out of 100 who took a placebo experienced improvement. (19% absolute improvement)\n- 33 more people out of 100 experienced improvement in the symptoms of their rheumatoid arthritis with Leflunomide \n- 14 people out of 100 experienced improvement in the symptoms of their rheumatoid arthritis with a placebo." } ]
query-laysum	22222	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe role of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for COVID-19 has been a subject of considerable discussion. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials is required.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether vitamin D supplementation is effective and safe for the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard of care alone, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 11 March 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity.\nWe excluded studies investigating preventive effects, or studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)).\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology.\nTo assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following prioritised outcome categories: individuals with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease: all-cause mortality, development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events.\nMain results\nWe identified three RCTs with 356 participants, of whom 183 received vitamin D. In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale, two studies investigated participants with moderate or severe disease, and one study individuals with mild or asymptomatic disease. The control groups consisted of placebo treatment or standard of care alone.\nEffectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease\nWe included two studies with 313 participants. Due to substantial clinical and methodological diversity of both studies, we were not able to pool data. Vitamin D status was unknown in one study, whereas the other study reported data for vitamin D deficient participants. One study administered multiple doses of oral calcifediol at days 1, 3 and 7, whereas the other study gave a single high dose of oral cholecalciferol at baseline. We assessed one study with low risk of bias for effectiveness outcomes, and the other with some concerns about randomisation and selective reporting.\nAll-cause mortality at hospital discharge (313 participants)\nWe found two studies reporting data for this outcome. One study reported no deaths when treated with vitamin D out of 50 participants, compared to two deaths out of 26 participants in the control group (Risk ratio (RR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.13). The other study reported nine deaths out of 119 individuals in the vitamin D group, whereas six participants out of 118 died in the placebo group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.04]. We are very uncertain whether vitamin D has an effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (very low-certainty evidence).\nClinical status assessed by the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (237 participants)\nWe found one study reporting data for this outcome. Nine out of 119 participants needed invasive mechanical ventilation when treated with vitamin D, compared to 17 out of 118 participants in the placebo group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.13). Vitamin D supplementation may decrease need for invasive mechanical ventilation, but the evidence is uncertain (low-certainty evidence).\nQuality of life\nWe did not find data for quality of life.\nSafety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease\nWe did not include data from one study, because assessment of serious adverse events was not described and we are concerned that data might have been inconsistently measured. This study reported vomiting in one out of 119 participants immediately after vitamin D intake (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.30). We are very uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with higher risk for adverse events (very low-certainty).\nEffectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and asymptomatic or mild disease\nWe found one study including 40 individuals, which did not report our prioritised outcomes, but instead data for viral clearance, inflammatory markers, and vitamin D serum levels. The authors reported no events of hypercalcaemia, but recording and assessment of further adverse events remains unclear. Authors administered oral cholecalciferol in daily doses for at least 14 days, and continued with weekly doses if vitamin D blood levels were > 50 ng/mL.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment of COVID-19. The evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19 is very uncertain. Moreover, we found only limited safety information, and were concerned about consistency in measurement and recording of these outcomes.\nThere was substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies, mainly because of different supplementation strategies, formulations, vitamin D status of participants, and reported outcomes.\nThere is an urgent need for well-designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate randomisation procedure, comparability of study arms and preferably double-blinding. We identified 21 ongoing and three completed studies without published results, which indicates that these needs will be addressed and that our findings are subject to change in the future. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.\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 11 March 2021." } ]
query-laysum	22223	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nViral load (VL) testing in people living with HIV (PLHIV) helps to monitor antiretroviral therapy (ART). VL is still largely tested using central laboratory-based platforms, which have long test turnaround times and involve sophisticated equipment. VL tests with point-of-care (POC) platforms capable of being used near the patient are potentially easy to use, give quick results, are cost-effective, and could replace central or reference VL testing platforms.\nObjectives\nTo estimate the diagnostic accuracy of POC tests to detect high viral load levels in PLHIV attending healthcare facilities.\nSearch methods\nWe searched eight electronic databases using standard, extensive Cochrane search methods, and did not use any language, document type, or publication status limitations. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and consulted an expert in the field from the World Health Organization (WHO) HIV Department for potentially relevant studies. The latest search was 23 November 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included any primary study that compared the results of a VL test with a POC platform to that of a central laboratory-based reference test to detect high viral load in PLHIV on HIV/AIDS care or follow-up. We included all forms of POC tests for VL as defined by study authors, regardless of the healthcare facility in which the test was conducted. We excluded diagnostic case-control studies with healthy controls and studies that did not provide sufficient data to create the 2 × 2 tables to calculate sensitivity and specificity. We did not limit our study inclusion to age, gender, or geographical setting.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the search results to identify eligible articles. They also independently extracted data using a standardized data extraction form and conducted risk of bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Using participants as the unit of analysis, we fitted simplified univariable models for sensitivity and specificity separately, employing a random-effects model to estimate the summary sensitivity and specificity at the current and commonly reported World Health Organization (WHO) threshold (≥ 1000 copies/mL). The bivariate models did not converge to give a model estimate.\nMain results\nWe identified 18 studies (24 evaluations, 10,034 participants) defining high viral loads at main thresholds ≥ 1000 copies/mL (n = 20), ≥ 5000 copies/mL (n = 1), and ≥ 40 copies/mL (n = 3). All evaluations were done on samples from PLHIV retrieved from routine HIV/AIDS care centres or health facilities. For clinical applicability, we included 14 studies (20 evaluations, 8659 participants) assessing high viral load at the clinical threshold of ≥ 1000 copies/mL in the meta-analyses. Of these, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and Asia contributed 16, three, and one evaluation respectively. All included participants were on ART in only nine evaluations; in the other 11 evaluations the proportion of participants on ART was either partial or not clearly stated. Thirteen evaluations included adults only (n = 13), five mixed populations of adults and children, whilst in the remaining two the age of included populations was not clearly stated. The majority of evaluations included commercially available tests (n = 18). Ten evaluations were POC VL tests conducted near the patient in a peripheral or onsite laboratory, whilst the other 10 were evaluations of POC VL tests in a central or reference laboratory setting. The test types evaluated as POC VL tests included Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load test (n = 8), SAMBA HIV-1 Semi-Q Test (n = 9), Alere Q NAT prototype assay for HIV-1 (n = 2) and m-PIMA HIV-1/2 Viral Load test (n = 1). The majority of evaluations (n = 17) used plasma samples, whilst the rest (n = 3) utilized whole blood samples.\nPooled sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of POC VL at a threshold of ≥ 1000 copies/mL was 96.6% (94.8 to 97.8) (20 evaluations, 2522 participants), and pooled specificity (95% CI) was 95.7% (90.8 to 98.0) (20 evaluations, 6137 participants). Median prevalence for high viral load (≥ 1000 copies/mL) (n = 20) was 33.4% (range 6.9% to 88.5%).\nLimitations\nThe risk of bias was mostly assessed as unclear across the four domains due to incomplete reporting.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found POC VL to have high sensitivity and high specificity for the diagnosis of high HIV viral load in PLHIV attending healthcare facilities at a clinical threshold of ≥ 1000 copies/mL.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"To whom do the results of this review apply?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "PLHIV with suspected high viral loads attending healthcare facilities." } ]
query-laysum	22224	[ { "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: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The available evidence is of low quality. Risk of bias for these studies is unclear regarding the procedures used to randomise participants to LAC or placebo, to conceal treatment allocation, and to blind assessors to the results of the treatments." } ]
query-laysum	22225	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn children with urinary tract infection (UTI), only those with pyelonephritis (and not cystitis) are at risk for developing long-term renal sequelae. If non-invasive biomarkers could accurately differentiate children with cystitis from children with pyelonephritis, treatment and follow-up could potentially be individualized. This is an update of a review first published in 2015.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of this review were to 1) determine whether procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) can replace the acute DMSA scan in the diagnostic evaluation of children with UTI; 2) assess the influence of patient and study characteristics on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests, and 3) compare the performance of the three tests to each other.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, Web of Science, and BIOSIS Previews through to 17th December 2019 for this review. The reference lists of all included articles and relevant systematic reviews were searched to identify additional studies not found through the electronic search.\nSelection criteria\nWe only considered published studies that evaluated the results of an index test (PCT, CRP, ESR) against the results of an acute-phase 99Tc-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scan (conducted within 30 days of the UTI) in children aged 0 to 18 years with a culture-confirmed episode of UTI. The following cut-off values were used for the primary analysis: 0.5 ng/mL for procalcitonin, 20 mg/L for CRP and 30 mm/hour for ESR.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently applied the selection criteria to all citations and independently abstracted data. We used the bivariate model to calculate pooled random-effects pooled sensitivity and specificity values.\nMain results\nA total of 36 studies met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies provided data for the primary analysis: 12 studies (1000 children) included data on PCT, 16 studies (1895 children) included data on CRP, and eight studies (1910 children) included data on ESR (some studies had data on more than one test). The summary sensitivity estimates (95% CI) for the PCT, CRP, ESR tests at the aforementioned cut-offs were 0.81 (0.67 to 0.90), 0.93 (0.86 to 0.96), and 0.83 (0.71 to 0.91), respectively. The summary specificity values for PCT, CRP, and ESR tests at these cut-offs were 0.76 (0.66 to 0.84), 0.37 (0.24 to 0.53), and 0.57 (0.41 to 0.72), respectively.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe ESR test does not appear to be sufficiently accurate to be helpful in differentiating children with cystitis from children with pyelonephritis. A low CRP value (< 20 mg/L) appears to be somewhat useful in ruling out pyelonephritis (decreasing the probability of pyelonephritis to < 20%), but unexplained heterogeneity in the data prevents us from making recommendations at this time. The procalcitonin test seems better suited for ruling in pyelonephritis, but the limited number of studies and the marked heterogeneity between studies prevents us from reaching definitive conclusions. Thus, at present, we do not find any compelling evidence to recommend the routine use of any of these tests in clinical practice.\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": "In some children with urinary tract infection (UTI), the infection is localized to the bladder (lower urinary tract). In others, bacteria ascend from the bladder to the kidney (upper urinary tract). Only children with upper urinary tract involvement are at risk for developing permanent kidney damage. If non-invasive biomarkers could accurately differentiate children with lower urinary tract disease from children with upper urinary tract disease, treatment and follow-up could potentially be individualized." } ]
query-laysum	22226	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAlthough exercise is recommended as part of the cystic fibrosis (CF) therapeutic routine, adherence to exercise is still limited. Digital health technologies can provide easy-to-access health information and may help improve healthcare and outcomes in individuals with long-term conditions. However, its effects for delivering and monitoring exercise programs in CF have not yet been synthesized.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of digital health technologies for delivering and monitoring exercise programs, increasing adherence to exercise regimens, and improving key clinical outcomes in people with CF.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 21 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of digital health technologies for delivering or monitoring exercise programs in CF.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. physical activity, 2. self-management behavior, and 3. pulmonary exacerbations. Our secondary outcomes were 4. usability of technologies, 5. quality of life, 6. lung function, 7. muscle strength, 8. exercise capacity, 9. physiologic parameters, and 10. adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified four parallel RCTs (three single-center and one multicenter with 231 participants aged six years or older). The RCTs evaluated different modes of digital health technologies with distinct purposes, combined with diverse interventions.\nWe identified important methodologic concerns in the RCTs, including insufficient information on the randomization process, blinding of outcome assessors, balance of non-protocol interventions across groups, and whether the analyses performed corrected for bias due to missing outcome data. Non-reporting of results may also be a concern, especially because some planned outcome results were reported incompletely. Furthermore, each trial had a small number of participants, resulting in imprecise effects. These limitations on the risk of bias, and on the precision of effect estimates resulted in overall low- to very low-certainty evidence. We undertook four comparisons and present the findings for our primary outcomes below. There is no information on the effectiveness of other modes of digital health technologies for monitoring physical activity or delivering exercise programs in people with CF, on adverse events related to the use of digital health technologies either for delivering or monitoring exercise programs in CF, and on their long-term effects (more than one year).\nDigital health technologies for monitoring physical activity\nWearable fitness tracker plus personalized exercise prescription compared to personalized exercise prescription alone\nOne trial (40 adults with CF) evaluated this outcome, but did not report data for any of our primary outcomes.\nWearable fitness tracker plus text message for personalized feedback and goal setting compared to wearable fitness tracker alone\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effects of a wearable fitness tracker plus text message for personalized feedback and goal setting, compared to wearable technology alone on physical activity measured by step count at six-month follow-up (mean difference [MD] 675.00 steps, 95% confidence interval [CI] −2406.37 to 3756.37; 1 trial, 32 participants). The same study measured pulmonary exacerbation rates and reported finding no difference between groups.\nWeb-based application to record, monitor, and set goals on physical activity plus usual care compared to usual care alone\nUsing a web-based application to record, monitor, and set goals on physical activity plus usual care may result in little to no difference on time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity measured via accelerometry compared to usual care alone at six-month follow-up (MD −4 minutes/day, 95% CI −37 to 29; 1 trial, 63 participants). Low certainty-evidence from the same trial suggests that the intervention may result in little to no difference on pulmonary exacerbations during 12 months of follow-up (median 1 respiratory hospitalization, interquartile range [IQR] 0 to 3) versus control (median 1 respiratory hospitalization, IQR 0 to 2; P = 0.6).\nDigital health technologies for delivering exercise programs\nWeb-based versus face-to-face exercise delivery\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effects of web-based compared to face-to-face exercise delivery on adherence to physical activity as assessed by the number of participants who completed all exercise sessions after three months of intervention (risk ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.23; 1 trial, 51 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effects of an exercise program plus the use of a wearable fitness tracker integrated with a social media platform compared with exercise prescription alone and on the effects of receiving a wearable fitness tracker plus text message for personalized feedback and goal setting, compared to a wearable fitness tracker alone. Low-certainty evidence suggests that using a web-based application to record, monitor, and set goals on physical activity plus usual care may result in little to no difference in time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, total time spent in activity, pulmonary exacerbations, quality of life, lung function, and exercise capacity compared to usual care alone. Regarding the use of digital health technologies for delivering exercise programs in CF, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of using a wearable fitness tracker plus personalized exercise prescription compared to personalized exercise prescription alone.\nFurther high-quality RCTs, with blinded outcome assessors, reporting the effects of digital health technologies on clinically important outcome measures, such as physical activity participation and intensity, self-management behavior, and the occurrence of pulmonary exacerbations in the long term are needed. The results of six ongoing RCTs identified through our searches may help clarify the effects of different modes of digital health technologies for delivering and monitoring exercise programs in people with CF.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is digital health technology?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "When we talk about digital interventions, we mean using technology to allow communication and the sending of information between an individual and a healthcare provider to help manage a person's condition remotely. This can be done by mobile phone, tablet computer applications, or other types of technologies." } ]
query-laysum	22227	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPsychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted affect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with first episode psychosis (FEP) and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.'\nSpecialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced a recent-onset psychosis. The purpose of SEI teams is to intensively treat people with psychosis early in the course of the illness with the goal of increasing the likelihood of recovery and reducing the need for longer-term mental health treatment. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and occupational, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. A previous Cochrane Review of SEI found preliminary evidence that SEI may be superior to standard community mental health care (described as 'treatment as usual (TAU)' in this review) but these recommendations were based on data from only one trial. This review updates the evidence for the use of SEI services.\nObjectives\nTo compare specialised early intervention (SEI) teams to treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.\nSearch methods\nOn 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting useable data as included studies.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs and one cluster-RCT with a total of 1145 participants. The mean age in the trials was between 23.1 years (RAISE) and 26.6 years (OPUS). The included participants were 405 females (35.4%) and 740 males (64.6%). All trials took place in community mental healthcare settings.\nTwo trials reported on recovery from psychosis at the end of treatment, with evidence that SEI team care may result in more participants in recovery than TAU at the end of treatment (73% versus 52%; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.97; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThree trials provided data on disengagement from services at the end of treatment, with fewer participants probably being disengaged from mental health services in SEI (8%) in comparison to TAU (15%) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere was low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer admissions to psychiatric hospital than TAU at the end of treatment (52% versus 57%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 4 studies, 1145 participants) and low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer psychiatric hospital days (MD -27.00 days, 95% CI -53.68 to -0.32; 1 study, 547 participants).\nTwo trials reported on general psychotic symptoms at the end of treatment, with no evidence of a difference between SEI and TAU, although this evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -4.58 to 3.75; 2 studies, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A different pattern was observed in assessment of general functioning with an end of trial difference that may favour SEI (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66; 2 studies, 467 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIt was uncertain whether the use of SEI resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality at end of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.20; 3 studies, 741 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere was low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in three of the four included trials; the remaining trial had unclear risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention, we considered all trials at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Two trials had low risk of bias and two trials had high risk of bias for blinding of outcomes assessments. Three trials had low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, while one trial had high risk of bias. Two trials had low risk of bias, one trial had high risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence that SEI may provide benefits to service users during treatment compared to TAU. These benefits probably include fewer disengagements from mental health services (moderate-certainty evidence), and may include small reductions in psychiatric hospitalisation (low-certainty evidence), and a small increase in global functioning (low-certainty evidence) and increased service satisfaction (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence regarding the effect of SEI over TAU after treatment has ended is uncertain. Further evidence investigating the longer-term outcomes of SEI is needed. Furthermore, all the eligible trials included in this review were conducted in high-income countries, and it is unclear whether these findings would translate to low- and middle-income countries, where both the intervention and the comparison conditions may be different.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What we found\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found four studies in 1145 people (65% men; average age 23 to 26 years) with recent-onset psychosis. The studies compared treatment by specialist early intervention teams against 'usual treatment' (treatment by community health or outpatient mental health teams).\nThe studies took place in community mental health services in high-income countries: Denmark, Sweden, the UK and the USA. The studies lasted from 18 to 24 months." } ]
query-laysum	22228	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBacterial meningitis remains a significant cause of neonatal and childhood morbidity and mortality in many countries of the world, particularly in developing countries. In some instances, children recover but remain impaired as a result of neurological sequelae such as hearing loss, developmental delay and cognitive impairment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive corticosteroids in reducing death and neurological sequelae in neonates with bacterial meningitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to July 2015), African Index Medicus (up to January 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (up to July 2015), EMBASE (up to July 2015) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of adjunctive corticosteroids for treatment of neonates with bacterial meningitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed and extracted data on methods, participants, interventions and outcomes (all-cause death until hospital discharge, presence of sensorineural deafness at one year and presence of neurological deficits or developmental delay at two years, adverse events). Risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) were calculated when appropriate. We assessed quality using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system.\nMain results\nWe found two trials with 132 participants that met our inclusion criteria. One of the included trials was a quasi-randomised trial.\nAdjunctive corticosteroids reduced the risk of death (typical RR 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.88; typical RD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.04; NNTB = 6; two studies, 132 participants, very low-quality evidence) but did not have a significant effect on the number of infants with sensorineural deafness at two years (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.18 to 18.21; RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.21; one study, 38 participants, low-quality evidence). In one trial, dexamethasone reduced the likelihood of hearing loss at four to 10 weeks post discharge (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.98; RD -0.25, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.01; one study, 59 participants, low-quality evidence). Data reported on the other outcomes of interest were insufficient.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low-quality data from two randomised controlled trials suggest that some reduction in death and hearing loss may result from use of adjunctive steroids alongside standard antibiotic therapy for treatment of patients with neonatal meningitis. Benefit is not yet seen with regards to reduction in neurological sequelae. Researchers who wish to clarify these findings must conduct more robustly designed trials with greater numbers of participants, evaluating more relevant outcomes and providing adequate follow-up.\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": "Neonatal meningitis is a common cause of death and long-term disability among children everywhere, particularly in developing countries. In this review, we investigated the benefits and safety of adjunctive corticosteroids in the treatment of neonatal meningitis." } ]
query-laysum	22229	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nResections of the pancreatic body and tail reaching to the left of the superior mesenteric vein are defined as distal pancreatectomy. Most distal pancreatectomies are elective treatments for chronic pancreatitis, benign or malignant diseases, and they have high morbidity rates of up to 40%. Pancreatic fistula formation is the main source of postoperative morbidity, associated with numerous further complications. Researchers have proposed several surgical resection and closure techniques of the pancreatic remnant in an attempt to reduce these complications. The two most common techniques are scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant and stapler resection and closure.\nObjectives\nTo compare the rates of pancreatic fistula in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy using scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant versus stapler resection and closure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis and Science Citation Index from database inception to October 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stapler versus scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant for distal pancreatectomy (irrespective of language or publication status).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted the data. Taking into consideration the clinical heterogeneity between the trials (e.g. different endpoint definitions), we analysed data using a random-effects model with Review Manager (RevMan), calculating risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nIn two eligible trials, a total of 381 participants underwent distal pancreatic resection and were randomised to closure of the pancreatic remnant either with stapler (n = 191) or scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure (n = 190). One was a single centre pilot RCT and the other was a multicentre blinded RCT. The single centre pilot RCT evaluated 69 participants in five intervention arms (stapler, hand-sewn, fibrin glue, mesh and pancreaticojejunostomy), although we only assessed the stapler and hand-sewn closure groups (14 and 15 participants, respectively). The multicentre RCT had two interventional arms: stapler (n = 177) and hand-sewn closure (n = 175). The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was the main outcome, and it occurred in 79 of 190 participants in the hand-sewn group compared to 65 of 191 participants in the stapler group. Neither the individual trials nor the meta-analysis showed a significant difference between resection techniques (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.45; P = 0.66). In the same way, postoperative mortality and operation time did not differ significantly. The single centre RCT had an unclear risk of bias in the randomisation, allocation and both blinding domains. However, the much larger multicentre RCT had a low risk of bias in all domains. Due to the small number of events and the wide confidence intervals that cannot exclude clinically important benefit or harm with stapler versus hand-sewn closure, there is a serious possibility of imprecision, making the overall quality of evidence moderate.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe quality of evidence is moderate and mainly based on the high weight of the results of one multicentre RCT. Unfortunately, there are no other completed RCTs on this topic except for one relevant ongoing trial. Neither stapler nor scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant for distal pancreatectomy showed any benefit compared to the other method in terms of postoperative pancreatic fistula, overall postoperative mortality or operation time. Currently, the choice of closure is left up to the preference of the individual surgeon and the anatomical characteristics of the patient. Another (non-European) multicentre trial (e.g. with an equality or non-inferiority design) would help to corroborate the findings of this meta-analysis. Future trials assessing novel methods of stump closure should compare them either with stapler or hand-sewn closure as a control group to ensure comparability of results.\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 pancreas is an abdominal organ producing enzymes that aid in digestion and regulation of blood sugar. Cancer of the pancreas is one of the most lethal types of cancer, and the only chance of cure is through radical surgery that removes part of the organ (a surgical procedure known as a resection, and in this case, distal pancreatectomy). Unfortunately, pancreatic surgery is not easy to perform and is complicated by high rates of postoperative complications. One of the most difficult complications is pancreatic fistula, which is when pancreatic enzymes leak from the resection site into the abdominal cavity, reacting with other internal organs to cause pain, infection and bleeding. The best method to prevent such complications is still unknown. Cutting the pancreas with a scalpel and sewing it shut by hand is the oldest method. More recently, surgeons also have had the option of using stapling devices, which cut and close the tissue simultaneously. Today, these two methods are the most commonly used to remove the tail of the pancreas. The aim of this review is to compare which method is safer and more effective." } ]
query-laysum	22230	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPharmacological interventions are frequently used for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to manage behaviours of concern, including irritability, aggression, and self-injury. Some pharmacological interventions might help treat some behaviours of concern, but can also have adverse effects (AEs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and AEs of pharmacological interventions for managing the behaviours of irritability, aggression, and self-injury in ASD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and two trials registers up to June 2022. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies, and contacted study authors, experts and pharmaceutical companies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of ASD, that compared any pharmacological intervention to an alternative drug, standard care, placebo, or wait-list control.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were behaviours of concern in ASD, (irritability, aggression and self-injury); and AEs. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, and tolerability and acceptability. Two review authors independently assessed each study for risk of bias, and used GRADE to judge the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 131 studies involving 7014 participants in this review. We identified 26 studies as awaiting classification and 25 as ongoing. Most studies involved children (53 studies involved only children under 13 years), children and adolescents (37 studies), adolescents only (2 studies) children and adults (16 studies), or adults only (23 studies). All included studies compared a pharmacological intervention to a placebo or to another pharmacological intervention.\nAtypical antipsychotics versus placebo\nAt short-term follow−up (up to 6 months), atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability compared to placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.25 to −0.55, 12 studies, 973 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which may indicate a large effect. However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in aggression between groups (SMD −0.44, 95% CI −0.89 to 0.01; 1 study, 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Atypical antipsychotics may also reduce self-injury (SMD −1.43, 95% CI −2.24 to −0.61; 1 study, 30 participants; low-certainty evidence), possibly indicating a large effect.\nThere may be higher rates of neurological AEs (dizziness, fatigue, sedation, somnolence, and tremor) in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear evidence of an effect on other neurological AEs. Increased appetite may be higher in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but we found no clear evidence of an effect on other metabolic AEs. There was no clear evidence of differences between groups in musculoskeletal or psychological AEs.\nNeurohormones versus placebo\nAt short-term follow-up, neurohormones may have minimal to no clear effect on irritability when compared to placebo (SMD −0.18, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.00; 8 studies; 466 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. No data were reported for aggression or self -injury.\nNeurohormones may reduce the risk of headaches slightly in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of an effect of neurohormones on any other neurological AEs, nor on any psychological, metabolic, or musculoskeletal AEs (low- and very low-certainty evidence).\nAttention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related medications versus placebo\nAt short-term follow-up, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly (SMD −0.20, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.01; 10 studies, 400 participants; low-certainty evidence), which may indicate a small effect. However, there was no clear evidence that ADHD-related medications have an effect on self-injury (SMD −0.62, 95% CI −1.63 to 0.39; 1 study, 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for aggression.\nRates of neurological AEs (drowsiness, emotional AEs, fatigue, headache, insomnia, and irritability), metabolic AEs (decreased appetite) and psychological AEs (depression) may be higher in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for any other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for musculoskeletal AEs.\nAntidepressants versus placebo\nAt short-term follow-up, there was no clear evidence that antidepressants have an effect on irritability (SMD −0.06, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.18; 3 studies, 267 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data for aggression or self-injury were reported or could be included in the analysis.\nRates of metabolic AEs (decreased energy) may be higher in participants receiving antidepressants (very low-certainty evidence), although no other metabolic AEs showed clear evidence of a difference. Rates of neurological AEs (decreased attention) and psychological AEs (impulsive behaviour and stereotypy) may also be higher in the intervention group (very low-certainty evidence) although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of any difference in the other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence), nor between groups in musculoskeletal AEs (very low-certainty evidence).\nRisk of bias\nWe rated most of the studies across the four comparisons at unclear overall risk of bias due to having multiple domains rated as unclear, very few rated as low across all domains, and most having at least one domain rated as high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence suggests that atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly, and neurohormones may have little to no effect on irritability in the short term in people with ASD. There was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may reduce self-injury in the short term, although the evidence is uncertain. There was no clear evidence that antidepressants had an effect on irritability. There was also little to no difference in aggression between atypical antipsychotics and placebo, or self-injury between ADHD-related medications and placebo. However, there was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may result in a large reduction in self-injury, although the evidence is uncertain. No data were reported (or could be used) for self-injury or aggression for neurohormones versus placebo. Studies reported a wide range of potential AEs. Atypical antipsychotics and ADHD-related medications in particular were associated with an increased risk of metabolic and neurological AEs, although the evidence is uncertain for atypical antipsychotics and very uncertain for ADHD-related medications. The other drug classes had minimal or no associated AEs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to know which types of medication were effective in reducing behaviours of concern in people with ASD and whether they caused unwanted effects." } ]
query-laysum	22231	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInfantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. Colic appears to be more frequent in the first six weeks of life (prevalence range of 17% to 25%), depending on the specific location reported and definitions used, and usually resolves by three months. The aetiopathogenesis of infantile colic is unclear but most likely multifactorial. A number of psychological, behavioural and biological components (food hypersensitivity, allergy or both; gut microflora and dysmotility) are thought to contribute to it. The role of diet as a component in infantile colic remains controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of dietary modifications for reducing colic in infants less than four months of age.\nSearch methods\nIn July 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 17 other databases and 2 trials registers. We also searched Google, checked references and contacted study authors.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of dietary modifications, alone or in combination, for colicky infants younger than four months of age versus another intervention or placebo. We used specific definitions for colic, age of onset and the methods for performing the intervention. We defined 'modified diet' as any diet altered to include or exclude certain components.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcome was duration of crying, and secondary outcomes were response to intervention, frequency of crying episodes, parental/family quality of life, infant sleep duration, parental satisfaction and adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included 15 RCTs involving 1121 infants aged 2 to 16 weeks. All studies were small and at high risk of bias across multiple design factors (e.g. selection, attrition). The studies covered a wide range of dietary interventions, and there was no scope for meta-analysis. Using GRADE, we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.\nNo study reported on parental or family quality of life, infant sleep duration per 24 h, or parental satisfaction.\nLow-allergen maternal diet versus a diet containing potential allergens: one study (90 infants) found that 35/47 (74%) of infants responded (reduction in cry/fuss duration of 25%) to a low-allergen maternal diet, compared with 16/43 (37%) of infants with a maternal diet containing potential allergens (37% difference; 95% confidence interval (CI) 18 to 56; P < 0.001).\nLow-allergen diet or soy milk formula versus standard diet or cow's milk formula and dicyclomine hydrochloride: one study (120 infants) found that 10/15 (66.6%) breastfed babies responded to dicyclomine hydrochloride and a normal diet, compared with 10/16 (62.5%) on a low-allergen diet, while 24/45 (53.3%) standard formula-fed babies taking dicyclomine hydrochloride improved compared with 29/44 (65.9%) on soy milk formula. Response was defined as a reduction of crying to less than one hour per day after 48 hours of treatment, with remission persisting for one month.\nHydrolysed formula versus standard formula: one study (43 infants) reported that the number of infants who responded to the intervention (cried for less than 3 hours per day on at least 3 days a week) was 8/23 in the whey hydrolysate group versus 5/20 in the standard formula group (χ2 using yate's correction = 0.20, P = 0.65).\nThe same study (43 infants) reported a greater reduction in crying time postintervention with hydrolysed formula (104 min/d, 95% CI 55 to 155) than with standard formula (3 min/d, 95% CI −63 to 67); difference = 101 min/d, 95% CI 25 to 179; P = 0.02).\nThe author confirmed there were no adverse effects.\nHydrolysed formula or dairy- and soy-free maternal diet versus standard diet/formula and parental education or counselling: one study (21 infants) found that crying time decreased to 2.03 h/d (SD 1.03) in the hydrolysed or dairy- and soy-free maternal diet group compared with 1.08 h/d (SD 0.7) in the parent education or counselling group, nine days postintervention.\nPartially hydrolysed, lower lactose, whey-based formulae containing oligosaccharide versus standard formula with simethicone: one study (267 infants) found both groups experienced decreased colic episodes after seven days (partially hydrolysed formula: from 5.99 episodes (SD 1.84) to 2.47 episodes (SD 1.94); standard formula: from 5.41 episodes (SD 1.88) to 3.72 episodes (SD 1.98)); 95% CI 95% −0.7 to −1.8; P < 0.001). This difference was significant after two weeks (partially hydrolysed: 1.76 episodes (SD 1.60); standard formula: 3.32 episodes (SD 2.06); P < 0.001). The study author confirmed there were no adverse effects.\nLactase enzyme supplementation versus placebo: three studies (138 infants) assessed this comparison, but they are cross-over trials that did not report data from before washout. There were no adverse effects in any of the studies.\nExtract of Foeniculum vulgare, Matricariae recutita, and Melissa officinalis versus placebo: one study (93 infants) found that average daily crying time was lower for infants given the extract (76.9 min/d (SD 23.5), than infants given placebo (169.9 min/d (SD 23.1) at the end of the one-week study (95% CI −102.89 to −83.11; P < 0.01). There were no adverse effects.\nSoy protein-based formula versus standard cows' milk protein-based formula: one study (19 infants) reported a mean crying time of 12.7 h/week (SD 16.4) in the soy formula group versus 17.3 h/week (SD 6.9) in the standard cows' milk group, and that 5/10 (50%) responded in the soy formula group versus 0/9 (0%) in the standard cows' milk group.\nSoy protein formula with polysaccharide versus standard soy protein formula: one cross-over study (27 infants) assessed this comparison but did not provide disaggregated data for the pre-wash-out data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, evidence of the effectiveness of dietary modifications for the treatment of infantile colic is sparse and at significant risk of bias. The few available studies had small sample sizes, and most had serious limitations. There were insufficient studies, making the use of meta-analysis unfeasable. Benefits reported for hydrolysed formulas were inconsistent.\nBased on available evidence, we are unable to recommend any intervention. Future studies of single interventions, using clinically significant outcome measures, and appropriate design and power are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Infantile colic is a common problem afflicting otherwise healthy infants in the first three months of life. It is characterised by episodes of inconsolable crying lasting for longer than three hours per day, for more than three days a week, for at least three weeks.\nIt can be very distressing for parents.\nDietary changes, such as removing cows' milk from a breastfeeding mother's diet or switching formula-fed babies to a special soy-based formula, might reduce the symptoms of colic." } ]
query-laysum	22232	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPressure ulcers, also known as bed sores, pressure sores or decubitus ulcers develop as a result of a localised injury to the skin or underlying tissue, or both. The ulcers usually arise over a bony prominence, and are recognised as a common medical problem affecting people confined to a bed or wheelchair for long periods of time. Anabolic steroids are used as off-label drugs (drugs which are used without regulatory approval) and have been used as adjuvants to usual treatment with dressings, debridement, nutritional supplements, systemic antibiotics and antiseptics, which are considered to be supportive in healing of pressure ulcers. Anabolic steroids are considered because of their ability to stimulate protein synthesis and build muscle mass. Comprehensive evidence is required to facilitate decision making, regarding the benefits and harms of using anabolic steroids.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of anabolic steroids for treating pressure ulcers.\nSearch methods\nIn March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nPublished or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of anabolic steroids with alternative treatments or different types of anabolic steroids in the treatment of pressure ulcers.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment.\nMain results\nThe review contains only one trial with a total of 212 participants, all with spinal cord injury and open pressure ulcers classed as stage III and IV. The participants were mainly male (98.2%, 106/108) with a mean age of 58.4 (standard deviation 10.4) years in the oxandrolone group and were all male (100%, 104/104) with a mean age of 57.3 (standard deviation 11.6) years in the placebo group. This trial compared oxandrolone (20 mg/day, administered orally) with a dose of placebo (an inactive substance consisting of 98% starch and 2% magnesium stearate) and reported data on complete healing of ulcers and adverse events. There was very low-certainty evidence on the relative effect of oxandrolone on complete ulcer healing at the end of a 24-week treatment period (risk ratio RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.26) (downgraded twice for imprecision due to an extremely wide 95% CI, which spanned both benefit and harm, and once for indirectness, as the participants were mostly male spinal cord injury patients). Thus, we are uncertain whether oxandrolone improves or reduces the complete healing of pressure ulcers, as we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low.\nThere was low-certainty evidence on the risk of non-serious adverse events reported in participants treated with oxandrolone compared with placebo (RR 3.85, 95% CI 1.12 to 13.26) (downgraded once for imprecision and once for indirectness, as the participants were mostly male spinal cord injury patients). Thus, the treatment with oxandrolone may increase the risk of non-serious adverse events reported in participants.\nThere was very low-certainty evidence on the risk of serious adverse events reported in participants treated with oxandrolone compared with placebo (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.17) (downgraded twice for imprecision due to an extremely wide 95% CI, which spanned both benefit and harm, and once for indirectness, as the participants were mostly male spinal cord injury patients). Of the five serious adverse events reported in the oxandrolone-treated group, none were classed by the trial teams as being related to treatment. We are uncertain whether oxandrolone increases or decreases the risk of serious adverse events as we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low.\nSecondary outcomes such as pain, length of hospital stay, change in wound size or wound surface area, incidence of different type of infection, cost of treatment and quality of life were not reported in the included trial.\nOverall the evidence in this study was of very low quality (downgraded for imprecision and indirectness). This trial stopped early when the futility analysis (interim analysis) in the opinion of the study authors showed that oxandrolone had no benefit over placebo for improving ulcer healing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no high quality evidence to support the use of anabolic steroids in treating pressure ulcers.\nFurther well-designed, multicenter trials, at low risk of bias, are necessary to assess the effect of anabolic steroids on treating pressure ulcers, but careful consideration of the current trial and its early termination are required when planning future research.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review Question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We reviewed the evidence about the effect of anabolic steroids (medicines designed to increase muscle mass) for treating people with pressure ulcers." } ]
query-laysum	22233	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCerebral palsy occurs in up to 2.1 of every 1000 live births and encompasses a range of motor problems and movement disorders. One commonly occurring movement disorder amongst those with cerebral palsy is dystonia: sustained or intermittent involuntary muscle spasms and contractions that cause twisting, repetitive movements and abnormal postures. The involuntary contractions are often very painful and distressing and cause significant limitations to activity and participation.\nOral medications are often the first line of medical treatment for dystonia. Trihexyphenidyl is one such medication that clinicians often use to treat dystonia in people with cerebral palsy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of trihexyphenidyl in people with dystonic cerebral palsy, according to the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains of impairment, activity and participation. We also assessed the type and incidence of adverse effects in people taking the drug.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases and two trials registers in May 2017, and we checked reference lists and citations to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing oral trihexyphenidyl versus placebo for dystonia in cerebral palsy. We included studies in children and adults of any age with dystonic cerebral palsy, either in isolation or with the associated movement disorders of spasticity, ataxia, chorea, athetosis and/or hypotonia. We included studies regardless of whether or not the study authors specified the method used to diagnose dystonia in their study population. Primary outcomes were change in dystonia and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were: activity, including mobility and upper limb function; participation in activities of daily living; pain; and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified one study, which was set in Australia, that met the inclusion criteria. This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial in 16 children (10 boys and 6 girls) with predominant dystonic cerebral palsy and a mean age of 9 years (standard deviation 4.3 years, range 2 to 17 years). We considered the trial to be at low risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting and other sources of bias. We rated the GRADE quality of the evidence as low.\nWe found no difference in mean follow-up scores for change in dystonia as measured by the Barry Albright Dystonia Scale (BADS), which assesses eight body regions for dystonia on a 5-point scale (0 = none to 4 = severe), resulting in a total score of 0 to 32. The BADS score was 2.67 points higher (95% confidence interval (CI) −2.55 to 7.90; low-quality evidence), that is, worse dystonia, in the treated group. Trihexyphenidyl may be associated with an increased risk of adverse effects (risk ratio 2.54, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.67; low-quality evidence).\nThere was no difference in mean follow-up scores for upper limb function as measured by the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test, which has four domains that collectively assess 36 items (each scored 1 or 2) and produces a total score of 0 to 100. The score in the treated group was 4.62 points lower (95% CI −10.98 to 20.22; low-quality evidence), corresponding to worse function, than in the control group. We found low-quality evidence for improved participation (as represented by higher scores) in the treated group in activities of daily living, as measured by three tools: 18.86 points higher (95% CI 5.68 to 32.03) for the Goal Attainment Scale (up to five functional goals scored on 5-point scale (−2 = much less than expected to +2 = much more than expected)), 2.91 points higher (95% CI 1.01 to 4.82) for the satisfaction subscale of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM; satisfaction with performance in up to five problem areas scored on a 10-point scale (1 = not satisfied at all to 10 = extremely satisfied)), and 2.24 points higher (95% CI 0.64 to 3.84) for performance subscale of the COPM (performance in up to five problem areas scored on a 10-point scale (1 = not able to do to; 10 = able to do extremely well)).\nThe study did not report on pain or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present, there is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of trihexyphenidyl for people with cerebral palsy for the outcomes of: change in dystonia, adverse effects, increased upper limb function and improved participation in activities of daily living. The study did not measure pain or quality of life. There is a need for larger randomised, controlled, multicentre trials that also examine the effect on pain and quality of life in order to determine the effectiveness of trihexyphenidyl for people with cerebral palsy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Is trihexyphenidyl a helpful treatment for people with cerebral palsy who have a movement problem called dystonia?" } ]
query-laysum	22234	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatitis C infection is a disease of the liver caused by the hepatitis C virus. The estimated number of chronically infected people with hepatitis C virus worldwide is about 150 million people. Every year, another three to four million people acquire the infection. Chronic hepatitis C is a leading cause of liver-related mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that around 5% to 20% of people with the infection will develop liver cirrhosis, which increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver failure. Until 2011, the combination therapy of pegylated interferon-alpha (peginterferon) and ribavirin was the approved standard treatment for chronic hepatitis C. In 2011, first-generation direct-acting antivirals have been licensed, for use in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin for treating hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection. Nitazoxanide is another antiviral drug with broad antiviral activity and may have potential as an effective alternative, or an addition to standard treatment for the treatment of the hepatitis C virus.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of nitazoxanide in people with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (last searched April 2013), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1948 to April 2013), EMBASE (Ovid SP, 1980 to April 2013), LILACS (1983 to April 2013), and Science Citation Index EXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge, 1900 to April 2013), using the search strategies and the expected time spans. We also scanned reference lists of identified studies.\nWe also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal for registered trials, either completed or ongoing (April 2013).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials that examined the effects of nitazoxanide versus placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention in patients with chronic hepatitis C. We considered any co-intervention, including standard treatment, if delivered to all intervention groups of the randomised trial concerned.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data independently. We assessed the risk of systematic errors ('bias') by evaluation of bias risk domains. We used Review Manager 5.2 for the statistical analyses of dichotomous outcome data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous outcome data with mean difference (MD). For meta-analyses, we used a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model, along with an assessment of heterogeneity. We assessed risk of random errors ('play of chance') using trial sequential analysis. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to present review results in 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included seven randomised clinical trials with a total of 538 participants with chronic hepatitis C. Participants were 18 years of age or older, all diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 or 4. All of the trials had a high risk of bias. All of the trials compared nitazoxanide with placebo or no intervention, and six out of seven of the trials included different antiviral co-interventions administered equally to all intervention groups. Only one trial, comparing nitazoxanide plus peginterferon and ribavirin versus no intervention plus peginterferon and ribavirin, provided information that there were no deaths due to any cause or due to chronic hepatitis C (100 participants, very low quality evidence). The relative effect of nitazoxanide versus placebo or no intervention on adverse events was uncertain (37 out of 179 (21%) versus 30 out of 152 (20%); RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.71; I2 = 65%; four trials; very low quality evidence). Nitazoxanide decreased the risk of failure to achieve sustained virological response when compared with placebo or no intervention (159 out of 290 (55%) versus 133 out of 208 (64%); RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; seven trials; low quality evidence) and also the risk of failure to achieve virological end-of-treatment response (125 out of 290 (43%) versus 110 out of 208 (53%); RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.96; I2 = 46%; seven trials; low quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis supported the meta-analysis result for sustained virological response, but not the meta-analysis for virological end-of-treatment response. Meta-analysis also showed that nitazoxanide did not decrease the number of participants who showed no improvement in alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase serum levels when compared with placebo or no intervention (52 out of 97 (54%) versus 47 out of 95 (49%); RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.42; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low quality evidence). None of the included trials assessed the effects of nitazoxanide on morbidity or on quality of life. Histological changes were only reported on a subset of three participants out of thirteen participants included in a long term-follow-up trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low quality, or no, evidence on nitazoxanide for clinically- or patient-relevant outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, chronic hepatitis C-related mortality, morbidity, and adverse events in participants with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 or 4 infection. Our results of no improvement in alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase serum levels were also uncertain. No conclusion could be drawn about liver histology because of a lack of data. Our results indicate that nitazoxanide might have an effect on sustained virological response and virological end-of-treatment response. However, both results could be influenced by systematic errors because all the trials included in the review had a high risk of bias. Furthermore, only the beneficial effect on number of participants achieving sustained virological response was supported when we applied trial sequential analysis. The results on virological end-of-treatment response might, therefore, be caused by a random error. We totally lack information on the effects of nitazoxanide in participants with chronic hepatitis C genotypes 2 or 3 infection. More randomised clinical trials with a low risk of bias are needed to assess the effects of nitazoxanide for chronic hepatitis C.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is chronic hepatitis C, and why is it a problem?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Hepatitis C is a virus that infects people’s liver. When an infection goes on for a long time, it is said to be ‘chronic’.\nHepatitis C is mainly transmitted between people through contact with infected blood (mostly through illegal drug use that involves needle-sharing, but possibly from mother to baby in the womb, or through having sex with an infected person).\nUsually people infected with hepatitis C have no symptoms in the early stages of the infection; however, about 60% to 70% of them go on to develop severe liver-related problems which eventually lead to death. There are about 150 million people in the world with chronic hepatitis C infection and more than 350,000 of them die from this liver infection each year." } ]
query-laysum	22235	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWomen with a septate uterus are at increased risk for subfertility, recurrent miscarriage, and preterm birth. Restoration of the anatomy of the uterus by hysteroscopic septum resection is an established intervention. This treatment has been assessed mainly in retrospective cohort studies, which suggested a positive effect on pregnancy outcomes. The major flaw in these studies is the before/after design, which will always favour the tested intervention.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether hysteroscopic septum resection in women of reproductive age with a septate uterus improves live birth rates and to assess the safety of this procedure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register (inception to May 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL CRSO) (inception to May 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2016), Embase (1974 to May 2016), PsycINFO (1806 to May 2016), and CINAHL database (1982 to May 2016). We also searched trial registers for ongoing and registered trials, reference lists, the Cochrane Library, unpublished dissertations and theses, conference abstracts, OpenGrey, LILACS, PubMed, and Google.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect on reproductive outcomes and the safety of hysteroscopic septum resection in women of reproductive age with a septate uterus.\nData collection and analysis\nIf there had been studies to include, two review authors would have independently selected studies, assessed trial risk of bias, and extracted data. They would also have contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nAs in the 2011 version of this review, we identified no randomised controlled trials for inclusion in this update.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHysteroscopic septum resection in women of reproductive age with a septate uterus is performed worldwide to improve reproductive outcomes. At present, there is no evidence to support the surgical procedure in these women. Randomised controlled trials are urgently needed. Two trials are currently underway.\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": "As in the 2011 version of this review, we identified no published randomised controlled trials to include in this update." } ]
query-laysum	22236	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTinnitus is a symptom defined as the perception of sound in the absence of an external source. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice consultations every year where the primary complaint is tinnitus, equating to a major burden on healthcare services. Clinical management strategies include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), sound enrichment using ear-level sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies to manage co-morbid symptoms such as insomnia, anxiety or depression.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus in adults and children.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6); 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 7 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults and children with acute or chronic subjective tinnitus. We included studies where the intervention involved Ginkgo biloba and this was compared to placebo, no intervention, or education and information. Concurrent use of other medication or other treatment was acceptable if used equally in each group. Where an additional intervention was used equally in both groups, we analysed this as a separate comparison. The review included all courses of Ginkgo biloba, regardless of dose regimens or formulations, and for any duration of treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were tinnitus symptom severity measured as a global score on a multi-item tinnitus questionnaire and serious adverse effects (bleeding, seizures). Our secondary outcomes were tinnitus loudness (change in subjective perception), tinnitus intrusiveness, generalised depression, generalised anxiety, health-related quality of life and other adverse effects (gastrointestinal upset, headache, allergic reaction). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nThis review included 12 studies (with a total of 1915 participants). Eleven studies compared the effects of Ginkgo biloba with placebo and one study compared the effects of Ginkgo biloba with hearing aids to hearing aids alone. All included studies were parallel-group RCTs. In general, risk of bias was high or unclear due to selection bias and poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessments. Due to heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and measurement methods used, only limited data pooling was possible.\nGinkgo biloba versus placebo\nWhen we pooled data from two studies for the primary outcome tinnitus symptom severity, we found that Ginkgo biloba may have little to no effect (Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores) at three to six months compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.35 (scale 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.26 to 5.55; 2 studies; 85 participants) (very low-certainty). Ginkgo biloba may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding or seizures, with no serious adverse effects reported in either group (4 studies; 1154 participants; low-certainty).\nFor the secondary outcomes, one study found that there may be little to no difference between the effects of Ginkgo biloba and placebo on tinnitus loudness measured with audiometric loudness matching at 12 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -4.00 (scale -10 to 140 dB), 95% CI -13.33 to 5.33; 1 study; 73 participants) (very low-certainty). One study found that there may be little to no difference between the effects of Ginkgo biloba and placebo on health-related quality of life measured with the Glasgow Health Status Inventory at three months (MD -0.58 (scale 0 to 100), 95% CI -4.67 to 3.51; 1 study; 60 participants) (low-certainty). Ginkgo biloba may not increase the frequency of other adverse effects (gastrointestinal upset, headache, allergic reaction) at three months compared to placebo (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.60; 4 studies; 1175 participants) (low-certainty). None of the studies reported the other secondary outcomes of tinnitus intrusiveness or changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety.\nGingko biloba with concurrent intervention versus concurrent intervention only\nOne study compared Ginkgo biloba with hearing aids to hearing aids only. It assessed the mean difference in the change in Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores and tinnitus loudness using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) at three months. The study did not report adverse effects, tinnitus intrusiveness, changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety, or health-related quality of life. This was a single, very small study (22 participants) and for all outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of Ginkgo biloba for the treatment of tinnitus when compared to placebo. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of Ginkgo biloba when used with concurrent intervention (hearing aids). The certainty of the evidence for the reported outcomes, assessed using GRADE, ranged from low to very low. Future research into the effectiveness of Ginkgo biloba in patients with tinnitus should use rigorous methodology. Randomisation and blinding should be of the highest quality, given the subjective nature of tinnitus and the strong likelihood of a placebo response. The CONSORT statement should be used in the design and reporting of future studies. We also recommend the use of validated, patient-centred outcome measures for research in the field of tinnitus.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out whether Ginkgo biloba reduces tinnitus severity and whether it has any unwanted or harmful effects." } ]
query-laysum	22237	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is typically used for short-term delivery of intravascular fluids and medications. It is an essential element of modern medicine and the most frequent invasive procedure performed in hospitals. However, PVCs often fail before intravenous treatment is completed: this can occur because the device is not adequately attached to the skin, allowing the PVC to fall out, leading to complications such as phlebitis (irritation or inflammation to the vein wall), infiltration (fluid leaking into surrounding tissues) or occlusion (blockage). An inadequately secured PVC also increases the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), as the pistoning action (moving back and forth in the vein) of the catheter can allow migration of organisms along the catheter and into the bloodstream. Despite the many dressings and securement devices available, the impact of different securement techniques for increasing PVC dwell time is still unclear; there is a need to provide guidance for clinicians by reviewing current studies systematically.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of PVC dressings and securement devices on the incidence of PVC failure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Wounds Group Register (searched 08 April 2015): The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to March 7 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, March 7 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to March 7 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to March 8 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRCTs or cluster RCTs comparing different dressings or securement devices for the stabilisation of PVCs. Cross-over trials were ineligible for inclusion, unless data for the first treatment period could be obtained.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs (1539 participants) in this review. Trial sizes ranged from 50 to 703 participants. These six trials made four comparisons, namely: transparent dressings versus gauze; bordered transparent dressings versus a securement device; bordered transparent dressings versus tape; and transparent dressing versus sticking plaster. There is very low quality evidence of fewer catheter dislodgements or accidental removals with transparent dressings compared with gauze (two studies, 278 participants, RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92, P = 0.03%). The relative effects of transparent dressings and gauze on phlebitis (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68) and infiltration (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.33) are unclear. The relative effects on PVC failure of a bordered transparent dressing and a securement device have been assessed in only one small study and these were unclear. There was very low quality evidence from the same single study of less frequent dislodgement or accidental catheter removal with bordered transparent dressings than securement devices (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.63) but more phlebitis with bordered dressings (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 64.02) (very low quality evidence). A small single study compared bordered transparent dressings with tape and found very low quality evidence of more PVC failure with the bordered dressing (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.11) but the relative effects on dislodgement were not clear (very low quality evidence). The relative effects of transparent dressings and a sticking plaster have only been compared in one small study and are unclear. More high quality RCTs are required to determine the relative effects of alternative PVC dressings and securement devices.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is not clear if any one dressing or securement device is better than any other in securing peripheral venous catheters. There is a need for further, independent high quality trials to evaluate the many traditional as well as the newer, high use products. Given the large cost differences between some different dressings and securement devices, future trials should include a robust cost-effectiveness analysis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We assessed a number of quality indicators regarding the methods used in each study and graded the overall quality of studies as very low. Each study had a high or unclear risk of bias for some of the quality indicators. For example, it is likely that clinical staff responsible for assessing participants' outcomes knew the treatment group to which each person belonged, as the securement methods for PVCs looked different.\nThere were only a limited number of studies available for consideration in this review, and they did not investigate some securement products that are in common use." } ]
query-laysum	22238	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTophi develop in untreated or uncontrolled gout. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of non-surgical and surgical treatments for the management of tophi in gout.\nSearch methods\nWe updated the search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase databases to 28 August 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials examining interventions for tophi in gout in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included one trial in our original review. We added four more trials (1796 participants) in this update. One had three arms; pegloticase infusion every two weeks (biweekly), monthly pegloticase infusion (pegloticase infusion alternating with placebo infusion every two weeks) and placebo. Two studies looked at lesinurad 200 mg or 400 mg in combination with allopurinol. One trial studied lesinurad 200 mg or 400 mg in combination with febuxostat. One trial compared febuxostat 80 mg and 120 mg to allopurinol.\nTwo trials were at unclear risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of information on blinding of participants and personnel. All other trials were at low risk of bias.\nModerate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision; one study; 79 participants) showed that biweekly pegloticase resolved tophi in 21/52 participants compared with 2/27 on placebo (risk ratio (RR) 5.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38 to 21.54; number needed to treat for a benefit (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 6). Similar proportions of participants receiving biweekly pegloticase (80/85) had an adverse event compared to placebo (41/43) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07). However, more participants on biweekly pegloticase (15/85) withdrew due to an adverse event compared to placebo (1/43) (RR 7.59, 95% CI 1.04 to 55.55; number needed to treat for a harm (NNTH) 7, 95% CI 4 to 16).\nMore participants on monthly pegloticase (11/52) showed complete resolution of tophi compared with placebo (2/27) (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 11.97; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 91). Similar numbers of participants on monthly pegloticase (84/84) had an adverse event compared to placebo (41/43) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.14). More participants on monthly pegloticase (16/84) withdrew due to adverse events compared to placebo (1/43) (RR 8.19, 95% CI 1.12 to 59.71; NNTH 6, 95% CI 4 to 14). Infusion reaction was the most common reason for withdrawal.\nModerate-certainty evidence (2 studies; 103 participants; downgraded for imprecision) showed no clinically significant difference for complete resolution of target tophus in the lesinurad 200 mg plus allopurinol arm (11/53) compared to the placebo plus allopurinol arm (16/50) (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.57), or in the lesinurad 400 mg plus allopurinol arm (12/48) compared to the placebo plus allopurinol arm (16/50) (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.49).\nAn extension study examined lesinurad 200 mg or 400 mg in combination with febuxostat, or placebo (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for indirectness and imprecision). Participants on lesinurad in the original study continued (CONT) on the same dose. Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may be beneficial for tophi resolution; 43/65 in the lesinurad 400 mg CONT arm compared to 38/64 in the lesinurad 200 mg CONT arm had tophi resolution (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.46). Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may result in no difference in adverse events; 57/65 in the lesinurad 400 mg CONT arm had an adverse event compared to 50/64 in lesinurad 200 mg CONT arm (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.32). Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may result in no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events; 10/65 participants in the lesinurad 400 mg CONT arm withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 10/64 participants in the lesinurad 200 mg CONT arm (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.20). Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may result in no difference in mean serum uric acid (sUA), which was 3 mg/dl in the lesinurad 400 mg CONT group compared to 3.9 mg/dl in the lesinurad 200 mg CONT group (mean difference -0.90, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.29).\nParticipants who were not on lesinurad in the original study were randomised (CROSS) to lesinurad 200 mg or 400 mg, both in combination with febuxostat. Low-certainty evidence downgraded for indirectness and imprecision showed that lesinurad 400 mg (CROSS) may result in tophi resolution (17/34) compared to lesinurad 200 mg (CROSS) (14/33) (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.98). Lesinurad 400 mg in combination with febuxostat may result in no difference in adverse events (33/34 in the lesinurad 400 mg CROSS arm compared to 27/33 in the lesinurad 200 mg (CROSS); RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41). Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may result in no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events, 5/34 in the lesinurad 400 mg CROSS arm withdrew compared to 2/33 in the lesinurad 200 mg CROSS arm (RR 2.43, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.64). Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat results in no difference in sUA (4.2 mg/dl in lesinurad 400 mg CROSS) compared to lesinurad 200 mg (3.8 mg/dl in lesinurad 200 mg CROSS), mean difference 0.40 mg/dl, 95% CI -0.75 to 1.55.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence showed that pegloticase is probably beneficial for resolution of tophi in gout. Although there was little difference in adverse events when compared to placebo, participants on pegloticase had more withdrawals due to adverse events. Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may be beneficial for tophi resolution compared with lesinurad 200 mg plus febuxostat; there was no difference in adverse events between these groups. We were unable to determine whether lesinurad plus febuxostat is more effective than placebo. Lesinurad (400 mg or 200 mg) plus allopurinol is probably not beneficial for tophi resolution, and there was no difference in adverse events between these groups. RCTs on interventions for managing tophi in gout are needed, and the lack of trial data is surprising given that allopurinol is a well-established treatment for gout.\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": "Gout is caused by urate crystals forming within or around joints.\nInflammation can lead to pain, redness, warmth and swelling of the affected joints, making it difficult to touch or move. Some of the reasons why people develop gout include their genetic makeup, being overweight, ingesting certain medications (e.g. cyclosporine), impaired kidney function and lifestyle habits such as drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and sugar sweetened drinks.\nTophi are nodules that develop in people with uncontrolled chronic gout. Tophi can become infected, cause pain and lead to reduced function. Tophi can be treated with urate-lowering drugs (e.g. benzbromarone, probenecid, allopurinol, febuxostat, pegloticase, lesinurad), surgical removal or other interventions." } ]
query-laysum	22239	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay treatment for persistent asthma. Escalating treatment is required when asthma is not controlled with ICS therapy alone, which would include, but is not limited to, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or doubling the dose of ICS.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LABA or LAMA to ICS therapy versus doubling the dose of ICS in adolescents and adults whose asthma is not well controlled on medium-dose (MD)-ICS using a network meta-analysis (NMA), and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization ICTRP for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2008 to 19 December 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for studies including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with or were eligible for MD-ICS, comparing it to high-dose (HD)-ICS, ICS/LAMA, or ICS/LABA. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. Studies were of at least 12 weeks duration.\nData collection and analysis\nWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to a previously published protocol. We used Cochrane’s Screen4ME workflow to assess search results. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome is asthma exacerbations (moderate and severe).\nMain results\nWe included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks (range 12 to 78); mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 litres and 68% of predicted).\nMD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.59 to 0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46 to 0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70 to 1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty).\nThis study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty).\nMD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23 to 1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31 to 1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22 to 2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20 to 2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively).\nMD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11 to 1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or qualify of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty).\nThere is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as HD-ICS/LABA compared to MD-ICS/LABA.\nThe pairwise meta-analysis shows that MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause adverse events (AEs) and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.96; 4 studies, 2238 participants; moderate certainty; and RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99; 4 studies, 2239 participants; absolute risk reduction 10 fewer per 1000 participants; moderate certainty, respectively). The NMA evidence is in agreement with the pairwise evidence on treatment discontinuation due to AEs, but very uncertain on all-cause AEs, due to imprecision and heterogeneity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe review findings suggest that MD- or HD-ICS/LABA and MD-ICS/LAMA reduce moderate to severe asthma exacerbations and increase the odds of ACQ responders compared to MD-ICS whereas HD-ICS probably does not. The evidence is generally stronger for MD- and HD-ICS/LABA than for MD-ICS/LAMA primarily due to a larger evidence base. There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA, ICS/LAMA, or HD-ICS/LABA reduces severe asthma exacerbations or SAEs compared to MD-ICS. MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause AEs and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS.\nThe above findings may assist in deciding on a treatment option during the stepwise approach of asthma management. Longer-term safety of higher than medium-dose ICS needs to be addressed in phase 4 or observational studies given that the median duration of included studies was six months.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In this study, we wanted to find the best way to improve asthma control in teenagers and adults who were not managing their asthma well with medium-dose ICS. We compared three different treatments.\nThe three treatments we looked at were:\n• adding a LABA inhaler;\n• adding a LAMA inhaler;\n• doubling the dose of the current ICS inhaler.\nThe main goal was to see which treatment was the most effective in improving asthma control and which one was the safest in terms of side effects." } ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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