Datasets:

KenLuo
/

qls

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 24.7k rows

dataset stringclasses 1 value	id stringlengths 1 5	messages listlengths 2 2
query-laysum	22340	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAutism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are characterised by impairments in communication and reciprocal social interaction. These impairments can impact on relationships with family members, augment stress and frustration, and contribute to behaviours that can be described as challenging. Family members of individuals with ASD can experience high rates of carer stress and burden, and poor parental efficacy. While there is evidence to suggest that individuals with ASD and family members derive benefit from psychological interventions designed to reduce stress and mental health morbidity, and enhance coping, most studies to date have targeted the needs of either individuals with ASD, or family members. We wanted to examine whether family (systemic) therapy, aimed at enhancing communication, relationships or coping, is effective for individuals with ASD and their wider family network.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and acceptability of family therapy as a treatment to enhance communication or coping for individuals with ASD and their family members. If possible, we will also seek to establish the economic costs associated with family therapy for this clinical population.\nSearch methods\nOn 16 January 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and three trials registers. We also handsearched reference lists of existing systematic reviews and contacted study authors in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating the effectiveness of family therapy for young people or adults with ASD or family members, or both, delivered via any modality and for an unspecified duration, compared with either standard care, a wait-list control, or an active intervention such as an alternative type of psychological therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened each title and abstract and all full-text reports retrieved. To enhance rigour, 25% of these were independently screened by a third author.\nMain results\nThe search yielded 4809 records. Of these, we retrieved 37 full-text reports for further scrutiny, which we subsequently excluded as they did not meet the review inclusion criteria, and identified one study awaiting classification.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFew studies have examined the effectiveness of family therapy for ASD, and none of these are RCTs. Further research studies employing methodologically robust trial designs are needed to establish whether family therapy interventions are clinically beneficial for enhancing communication, strengthening relationships, augmenting coping and reducing mental health morbidity for individuals with ASD and family members.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "What is the evidence that family therapy can help to improve communication, strengthen relationships, and enhance coping, mental health and well-being for people who have autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) or their family members, or both?" } ]
query-laysum	22341	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTinea capitis is a common contagious fungal infection of the scalp in children. Systemic therapy is required for treatment and to prevent spread. This is an update of the original Cochrane review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic antifungal drugs for tinea capitis in children.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the following databases to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and CINAHL (from 1981). We searched five trial registers and checked the reference lists of studies for references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We obtained unpublished, ongoing trials and grey literature via correspondence with experts in the field and from pharmaceutical companies.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs of systemic antifungal therapy in children with normal immunity under the age of 18 with tinea capitis confirmed by microscopy, growth of fungi (dermatophytes) in culture or both.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 25 studies (N = 4449); 4 studies (N = 2637) were new to this update.\nTerbinafine for four weeks and griseofulvin for eight weeks showed similar efficacy for the primary outcome of complete (i.e. clinical and mycological) cure in three studies involving 328 participants with Trichophyton species infections (84.2% versus 79.0%; risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.15; low quality evidence).\nComplete cure with itraconazole (two to six weeks) and griseofulvin (six weeks) was similar in two studies (83.6% versus 91.0%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.05; N = 134; very low quality evidence). In two studies, there was no difference between itraconazole and terbinafine for two to three weeks treatment (73.8% versus 78.8%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; N = 160; low quality evidence). In three studies, there was a similar proportion achieving complete cured with two to four weeks of fluconazole or six weeks of griseofulvin (41.4% versus 52.7%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.05; N = 615; moderate quality evidence). Current evidence for ketoconazole versus griseofulvin was limited. One study favoured griseofulvin (12 weeks) because ketoconazole (12 weeks) appeared less effective for complete cure (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; low quality evidence). However, their effects appeared to be similar when the treatment lasted 26 weeks (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; low quality evidence). Another study indicated that complete cure was similar for ketoconazole (12 weeks) and griseofulvin (12 weeks) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.39; low quality evidence). For one trial, there was no significant difference for complete cure between fluconazole (for two to three weeks) and terbinafine (for two to three weeks) (82.0% versus 94.0%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.01; N = 100; low quality evidence). For complete cure, we did not find a significant difference between fluconazole (for two to three weeks) and itraconazole (for two to three weeks) (82.0% versus 82.0%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; low quality evidence).\nThis update provides new data: in children with Microsporum infections, a meta-analysis of two studies found that the complete cure was lower for terbinafine (6 weeks) than for griseofulvin (6-12 weeks) (34.7% versus 50.9%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; N = 334; moderate quality evidence). In the original review, there was no significant difference in complete cure between terbinafine (four weeks) and griseofulvin (eight weeks) in children with Microsporum infections in one small study (27.2% versus 60.0%; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.35; N = 21; low quality evidence).\nOne study provides new evidence that terbinafine and griseofulvin for six weeks show similar efficacy (49.5% versus 37.8%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.88; N = 1006; low quality evidence). However, in children infected with T. tonsurans, terbinafine was better than griseofulvin (52.1% versus 35.4%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.77; moderate quality evidence). For children infected with T. violaceum, these two regimens have similar effects (41.3% versus 45.1%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24; low quality evidence). Additionally, three weeks of fluconazole was similar to six weeks of fluconazole in one study in 491 participants infected with T. tonsurans and M. canis (30.2% versus 34.1%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14; low quality evidence).\nThe frequency of adverse events attributed to the study drugs was similar for terbinafine and griseofulvin (9.2% versus 8.3%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.57; moderate quality evidence), and severe adverse events were rare (0.6% versus 0.6%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.88; moderate quality evidence). Adverse events for terbinafine, griseofulvin, itraconazole, ketoconazole, and fluconazole were all mild and reversible.\nAll of the included studies were at either high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Using GRADE to rate the overall quality of the evidence, lower quality evidence resulted in lower confidence in the estimate of effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNewer treatments including terbinafine, itraconazole and fluconazole are at least similar to griseofulvin in children with tinea capitis caused by Trichophyton species. Limited evidence suggests that terbinafine, itraconazole and fluconazole have similar effects, whereas ketoconazole may be less effective than griseofulvin in children infected with Trichophyton. With some interventions the proportion achieving complete clinical cure was in excess of 90% (e.g. one study of terbinafine or griseofulvin for Trichophyton infections), but in many of the comparisons tested, the proportion cured was much lower.\nNew evidence from this update suggests that terbinafine is more effective than griseofulvin in children with T. tonsurans infection.\nHowever, in children with Microsporum infections, new evidence suggests that the effect of griseofulvin is better than terbinafine. We did not find any evidence to support a difference in terms of adherence between four weeks of terbinafine versus eight weeks of griseofulvin. Not all treatments for tinea capitis are available in paediatric formulations but all have reasonable safety profiles.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Which antifungal medicine is best for treating ringworm on the scalp in children?" } ]
query-laysum	22342	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND), causes increasing physical impairment and disability. People with ALS/MND face huge physical challenges, and the diagnosis can be a source of great psychological distress for both people with ALS/MND and their carers. In such a context, how news of the diagnosis is broken is important. At present, there are no systematic reviews of methods for informing people with ALS/MND of their diagnosis.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects and effectiveness of different methods for informing people of a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease (ALS/MND), including effects on the person's knowledge and understanding of their disease, its treatment, and care; and on coping and adjustment to the effects of ALS/MND, its treatment, and care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and two trials registers (February 2022). We contacted individuals or organisations to locate studies. We contacted study authors to obtain additional unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of techniques for informing people with ALS/MND of their diagnosis. We planned to include adults (aged 17 years or over) with ALS/MND, according to the El Escorial criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently reviewed the results of the search to identify RCTs, and three review authors identified non-randomised studies to include in the discussion section. We planned that two review authors would independently extract data, and three would assess the risk of bias in any included trials.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any RCTs that met our inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are no RCTs that evaluate different communication strategies for breaking the bad news for people diagnosed with ALS/MND.\nFocused research studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of different communication methods.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found no RCTs of methods for giving a diagnosis of ALS/MND.\nWe searched to February 2022." } ]
query-laysum	22343	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStaphylococcus aureus causes pulmonary infection in young children with cystic fibrosis. Prophylactic antibiotics are prescribed hoping to prevent such infection and lung damage. Antibiotics have adverse effects and long-term use might lead to infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo assess continuous oral antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of Staphylococcus aureus versus no prophylaxis in people with cystic fibrosis, we tested the following hypotheses to investigate whether prophylaxis:\n1. improves clinical status, lung function and survival;\n2. leads to fewer isolates of Staphylococcus aureus;\n3. causes adverse effects (e.g. diarrhoea, skin rash, candidiasis);\n4. leads to fewer isolates of other common pathogens from respiratory secretions;\n5. leads to the emergence of antibiotic resistance and colonisation of the respiratory tract with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Companies manufacturing anti-staphylococcal antibiotics were contacted.\nMost recent search of the Group's Register: 27 February 2020.\nOnline trials registries were also searched. Most recent search of online trials registries: 15 September 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of continuous oral prophylactic antibiotics (given for at least one year) compared to intermittent antibiotics given 'as required', in people with cystic fibrosis of any disease severity.\nData collection and analysis\nThe authors assessed studies for eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. The review's primary outcomes of interest were lung function by spirometry (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)) and the number of people with one or more isolates of Staphylococcus aureus (sensitive strains).\nMain results\nWe included four studies, with a total of 401 randomised participants aged zero to seven years on enrolment; one study is ongoing. The two older included studies generally had a higher risk of bias across all domains, but in particular due to a lack of blinding and incomplete outcome data, than the two more recent studies. We only regarded the most recent study as being generally free of bias, although even here we were not certain of the effect of the per protocol analysis on the study results. Evidence quality was judged to be low for all outcomes assessed after being downgraded based on GRADE assessments. Downgrading decisions were due to limitations in study design (all outcomes), for imprecision and for inconsistency .\nProphylactic anti-staphylococcal antibiotics probably make little or no difference to lung function measured as FEV1 % predicted after six years (mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.59 to 8.99, one study, n = 119, low-quality evidence); but may reduce the number of children having one or more isolates of Staphylococcus aureus at two years (odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35, three studies, n = 315, low-quality evidence). At the same time point, there may be little or no effect on nutrition as reported using weight z score (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.45, two studies, n = 140, low-quality evidence), additional courses of antibiotics (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.60, one study, n = 119, low-quality evidence) or adverse effects (low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa between groups at two years (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.23, three studies, n = 312, low-quality evidence), though there was a trend towards a lower cumulative isolation rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the prophylaxis group at two and three years and towards a higher rate from four to six years. As the studies reviewed lasted six years or less, conclusions cannot be drawn about the long-term effects of prophylaxis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAnti-staphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis may lead to fewer children having isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, when commenced early in infancy and continued up to six years of age. The clinical importance of this finding is uncertain. Further research may establish whether the trend towards more children with CF with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, after four to six years of prophylaxis, is a chance finding and whether choice of antibiotic or duration of treatment might influence this.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review includes four studies with 401 children; there were no adult studies. The children were put into groups at random and received either an oral antibiotic continuously as a prevention for at least one year or no antibiotic treatment to prevent infection with Staphylococcus aureus. All children could be given additional antibiotics if their doctor thought they needed them, based on symptoms and germs grown in their respiratory secretions. Studies lasted for a maximum of six years." } ]
query-laysum	22344	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis (CF) is a common, life-shortening, genetic disorder in populations of Northern European descent caused by the mutation of a single gene that codes for the production of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. This protein coordinates the transport of salt (and bicarbonate) across cell surfaces, and the mutation most notably affects the airways. In the lungs of people with CF, the defective protein compromises mucociliary clearance and makes the airway prone to chronic infection and inflammation, damaging the structure of the airways and eventually leading to respiratory failure. In addition, abnormalities in the truncated CFTR protein lead to other systemic complications, including malnutrition, diabetes and subfertility.\nFive classes of mutation have been described, depending on the impact of the mutation on the processing of the CFTR protein in the cell. In class I mutations, premature termination codons prevent the production of any functional protein, resulting in severe CF. Therapies targeting class I mutations aim to enable the normal cellular mechanism to read through the mutation, potentially restoring the production of the CFTR protein. This could, in turn, normalise salt transport in the cells and decrease the chronic infection and inflammation that characterises lung disease in people with CF.\nThis is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of ataluren and similar compounds on clinically important outcomes in people with CF with class I mutations (premature termination codons).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, which is compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. The last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register was conducted on 7 March 2022.\nWe searched clinical trial registries maintained by the European Medicines Agency, the US National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization. The last search of the clinical trials registries was conducted on 4 October 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing ataluren and similar compounds (specific therapies for class I mutations) with placebo in people with CF who have at least one class I mutation.\nData collection and analysis\nFor the included trials, the review authors independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE; trial authors were contacted for additional data.\nMain results\nOur searches identified 56 references to 20 trials; of these, 18 trials were excluded. Both the included parallel RCTs compared ataluren to placebo for 48 weeks in 517 participants (males and females; age range six to 53 years) with CF who had at least one nonsense mutation (a type of class I mutation).\nThe certainty of evidence and risk of bias assessments for the trials were moderate overall. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of trial personnel were well documented; participant blinding was less clear. Some participant data were excluded from the analysis in one trial that also had a high risk of bias for selective outcome reporting. PTC Therapeutics Incorporated sponsored both trials with grant support from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the US Food and Drug Administration's Office of Orphan Products Development and the National Institutes of Health.\nThe trials reported no difference between treatment groups in terms of quality of life, and no improvement in respiratory function measures. Ataluren was associated with a higher rate of episodes of renal impairment (risk ratio 12.81, 95% confidence interval 2.46 to 66.65; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 517 participants). The trials reported no treatment effect for ataluren for the review's secondary outcomes of pulmonary exacerbation, computed tomography score, weight, body mass index and sweat chloride. No deaths were reported in the trials.\nThe earlier trial performed a post hoc subgroup analysis of participants not receiving concomitant chronic inhaled tobramycin (n = 146). This analysis demonstrated favourable results for ataluren (n = 72) for the relative change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) per cent (%) predicted and pulmonary exacerbation rate. The later trial aimed to prospectively assess the efficacy of ataluren in participants not concomitantly receiving inhaled aminoglycosides, and found no difference between ataluren and placebo in FEV1 % predicted and pulmonary exacerbation rate.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effect of ataluren as a therapy for people with CF with class I mutations. One trial reported favourable results for ataluren in a post hoc subgroup analysis of participants not receiving chronic inhaled aminoglycosides, but these were not reproduced in the later trial, suggesting that the earlier results may have occurred by chance. Future trials should carefully assess for adverse events, notably renal impairment, and consider the possibility of drug interactions. Cross-over trials should be avoided, given the potential for the treatment to change the natural history of CF.\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 whether ataluren can improve the quality of life and lung function of people with CF, and whether it can do so without any side effects. We also wanted to measure the effects on lung infections (need for hospital visits or additional antibiotics), survival, nutritional status (weight, body mass index and height) and whether treatment was cost-effective." } ]
query-laysum	22345	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.\nObjectives\nThe main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.\nSearch methods\nFor the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.\nSelection criteria\nInclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.\nMain results\nWe included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I2 = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I2 = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We did not find evidence that giving smokers feedback on their smoking exposure, their genetic risk of smoking-related disease, or the effects of smoking on their body helps them quit smoking. The most promising results were for giving people feedback on the harm smoking does to their bodies. The studies did not report on harms or side effects of providing feedback. However, given the nature of the measurements (lung or blood tests), we would expect the risk of harms to be low." } ]
query-laysum	22346	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEfficacy and the risk of severe late effects have to be well-balanced in treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Late adverse effects include secondary malignancies which often have a poor prognosis. To synthesise evidence on the risk of secondary malignancies after current treatment approaches comprising chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, we performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from patients treated for newly diagnosed HL.\nObjectives\nWe investigated several questions concerning possible changes in the risk of secondary malignancies when modifying chemotherapy or radiotherapy (omission of radiotherapy, reduction of the radiation field, reduction of the radiation dose, use of fewer chemotherapy cycles, intensification of chemotherapy). We also analysed whether these modifications affect progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL trials databases comprehensively in June 2010 for all randomised trials in HL since 1984. Key international trials registries were also searched. The search was updated in March 2015 without collecting further IPD (one further eligible study found) and again in July 2017 (no further eligible studies).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for untreated HL patients which enrolled at least 50 patients per arm, completed recruitment by 2007 and performed a treatment comparison relevant to our objectives.\nData collection and analysis\nStudy groups submitted IPD, including age, sex, stage and the outcomes secondary malignant neoplasm (SMN), OS and PFS as time-to-event data. We meta-analysed these data using Petos method (SMN) and Cox regression with inverse-variance pooling (OS, PFS) for each of the five study questions, and performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the applicability and robustness of the results.\nMain results\nWe identified 21 eligible trials and obtained IPD for 16. For four studies no data were supplied despite repeated efforts, while one study was only identified in 2015 and IPD were not sought. For each study question, between three and six trials with between 1101 and 2996 participants in total and median follow-up between 6.7 and 10.8 years were analysed. All participants were adults and mainly under 60 years. Risk of bias was assessed as low for the majority of studies and outcomes.\nChemotherapy alone versus same chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. Omitting additional radiotherapy probably reduces secondary malignancy incidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.82, low quality of evidence), corresponding to an estimated reduction of eight-year SMN risk from 8% to 4%. This decrease was particularly true for secondary acute leukemias. However, we had insufficient evidence to determine whether OS rates differ between patients treated with chemotherapy alone versus combined-modality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.11, moderate quality of evidence). There was a slightly higher rate of PFS with combined modality, but our confidence in the results was limited by high levels of statistical heterogeneity between studies (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.73, moderate quality of evidence).\nChemotherapy plus involved-field radiation versus same chemotherapy plus extended-field radiation (early stages) . There is insufficient evidence to determine whether smaller radiation field reduces SMN risk (Peto OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16, low quality of evidence), OS (HR 0.89, 95% C: 0.70 to 1.12, high quality of evidence) or PFS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21, high quality of evidence).\nChemotherapy plus lower-dose radiation versus same chemotherapy plus higher-dose radiation (early stages). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of lower-radiation dose on SMN risk (Peto OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.50, low quality of evidence), OS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28, high quality of evidence) or PFS (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.48, high quality of evidence).\nFewer versus more courses of chemotherapy (each with or without radiotherapy; early stages). Fewer chemotherapy courses probably has little or no effect on SMN risk (Peto OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.62), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to1.34) or PFS (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.45).Outcomes had a moderate (SMN) or high (OS, PFS) quality of evidence.\nDose-intensified versus ABVD-like chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy in each case). In the mainly advanced-stage patients who were treated with intensified chemotherapy, the rate of secondary malignancies was low. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of chemotherapy intensification (Peto OR 1.37, CI 0.89 to 2.10, low quality of evidence). The rate of secondary acute leukemias (and for younger patients, all secondary malignancies) was probably higher than among those who had treatment with standard-dose ABVD-like protocols. In contrast, the intensified chemotherapy protocols probably improved PFS (eight-year PFS 75% versus 69% for ABVD-like treatment, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.7 to 0.95, moderate quality of evidence). Evidence suggesting improved survival with intensified chemotherapy was not conclusive (HR: 0.85, CI 0.70 to 1.04), although escalated-dose BEACOPP appeared to lengthen survival compared to ABVD-like chemotherapy (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79, moderate quality of evidence).\nGenerally, we could draw valid conclusions only in terms of secondary haematological malignancies, which usually occur less than 10 years after initial treatment, while follow-up within the present analysis was too short to record all solid tumours.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe risk of secondary acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndrome (AML/MDS) is increased but efficacy is improved among patients treated with intensified chemotherapy protocols. Treatment decisions must be tailored for individual patients. Consolidating radiotherapy is associated with an increased rate of secondary malignancies; therefore it appears important to define which patients can safely be treated without radiotherapy after chemotherapy, both for early and advanced stages. For early stages, treatment optimisation methods such as use of fewer chemotherapy cycles and reduced field or reduced-dose radiotherapy did not appear to markedly affect efficacy or secondary malignancy risk. Due to the limited amount of long-term follow-up in this meta-analysis, further long-term investigations of late events are needed, particularly with respect to secondary solid tumours. Since many older studies have been included, possible improvement of radiotherapy techniques must be considered when interpreting these results.\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 compare various forms of treatment for newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma involving chemotherapy with or without additional radiotherapy. We particularly looked at the risk of second cancers caused by these treatments, although survival and elimination of Hodgkin lymphoma were also investigated." } ]
query-laysum	22347	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiac complications are not uncommon in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, especially in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or at high risk of CAD. Perioperative cardiac complications can lead to mortality and morbidity, as well as higher costs for patient care. Nitrates, which are among the most commonly used cardiovascular drugs, perform the function of decreasing cardiac preload while improving cardiac blood perfusion. Sometimes, nitrates are administered to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery to reduce the incidence of cardiac complications, especially for patients with CAD. However, their effects on patients' relevant outcomes remain controversial.\nObjectives\n• To assess effects of nitrates as compared with other interventions or placebo in reducing cardiac risk (such as death caused by cardiac factors, angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, acute heart failure and cardiac arrhythmia) in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.\n• To identify the influence of different routes and dosages of nitrates on patient outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Chinese BioMedical Database until June 2014. We also searched relevant conference abstracts of important anaesthesiology or cardiology scientific meetings, the database of ongoing trials and Google Scholar.\nWe reran the search in January 2016. We added three potential new studies of interest to the list of ‘Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into our formal review findings for the review update.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nitrates versus no treatment, placebo or other pharmacological interventions in participants (15 years of age and older) undergoing non-cardiac surgery under any type of anaesthesia.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Two review authors selected trials, extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved differences by discussion and, when necessary, sought help and suggestions from a third review author. We used a random-effects model for data analysis.\nMain results\nWe included 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (8244 participants analysed). Investigators reported 12 different comparisons of three different nitrates (nitroglycerin, isosorbide dinitrate and nicorandil) versus no treatment, placebo or other pharmacological interventions. All participants were older than 15 years of age. More than half of the trials used general anaesthesia. Surgical procedures in most trials were at low to moderate risk for perioperative cardiac complications. Only two comparisons including three studies reported the primary outcome - all-cause mortality up to 30 days post operation. Researchers reported other morbidity outcomes and adverse events in a variable and heterogeneous way, resulting in limited available data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. We determined that the overall methodological quality of included studies was fair to low, in accordance with risk of bias in most domains.\nIn summary, we found no difference in the primary outcome - all-cause mortality up to 30 days post operation - when nitroglycerin was compared with no treatment (one study, 60 participants, 0/30 vs 1/30; (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.87, very low-quality evidence based on GRADE criteria) or with placebo (two studies, 89 participants, 1/45 vs 0/44; RR 2.81, 95% CI 0.12 to 63.83, very low-quality evidence). Regarding our secondary outcomes, we noted no statistically significant differences in angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrest in any comparisons. In comparisons versus nitroglycerin, although more events of cardiac ischaemia were observed in participants receiving no treatment or placebo, we found no statistically significant differences in any comparisons, except the comparison of nicorandil versus placebo. One study revealed a potential dose-dependent protective effect of nicorandil for cardiac ischaemia.\nAdverse events were reported in a heterogeneous way among the comparisons. In general, more participants treated with nitrates had hypotension, tachycardia and headache, but investigators reported no statistically significant differences between groups in any comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review suggests that nitroglycerin or isosorbide dinitrate is not associated with improvement in mortality and cardiac complications among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Limited evidence suggests that nicorandil may reduce the risk of cardiac ischaemia in participants undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Additional studies are needed to consolidate the evidence.\nHowever, the data included in many of the analyses in this review are sparse - that is, adequate data are few - resulting in very low power to detect differences between nitrates and comparators. Thus, a more objective conclusion would state that available evidence is insufficient to show whether nitrates are associated with improvement in mortality and cardiac complications among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.\nOver the past decade, no high-quality studies have focused on association of cardiac mortality and morbidity with use of nitrates during non-cardiac surgery. This review underlines the need for well-designed trials in this field.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We identified randomized controlled trials evaluating the benefits and side effects of nitrates by searching major databases for original articles until June 2014. We included 27 studies (8244 participants) in this review. All participants were older than 15 years. Most trial participants had low to mild risk of perioperative cardiac complications.\nWe reran the search in January 2016. We added three potential new studies of interest to the list of ‘Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into our formal review findings for the review update." } ]
query-laysum	22348	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIt has been reported that ozone therapy might be helpful in treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus (DM).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of ozone therapy on the healing of foot ulcers in people with DM.\nSearch methods\nIn March 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and The Chinese Clinical Registry. There were no restrictions based on language, date or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ozone therapy with sham ozone therapy or any other interventions for foot ulcers in people with DM, irrespective of publication date or language.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently screened all retrieved citations, selected relevant citations and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. The methodological quality of included studies and the evidence level of outcomes were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach respectively. Data were expressed using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Review Manager (RevMan) software was used to analyse the data.\nMain results\nThree studies (212 participants) were included in this review. The overall risk of bias was high for two trials and unclear for one.\nOne trial (101 participants) compared ozone treatment with antibiotics for foot ulcers in people with DM. The study had a follow-up period of 20 days. This study showed that ozone treatment was associated with a greater reduction in ulcer area from baseline to the end of the study than treatment with antibiotics (MD -20.54 cm2, 95% CI -20.61 to -20.47), and a shorter duration of hospitalisation (MD -8.00 days, 95% CI -14.17 to -1.83), but did not appear to affect the number of ulcers healed over 20 days (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40). No side effects were observed in either group.\nThe other two trials (111 participants) compared ozone treatment plus usual care with usual care for foot ulcers in people with DM. The meta-analysis results did not show evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes of reduction of ulcer area (MD -2.11 cm2, 95% CI -5.29 to 1.07), the number of ulcers healed (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.17), adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 10.79), or amputation rate (RR 2.73, 95%CI 0.12, 64.42).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence was three small RCTs with unclear methodology, so we are unable to draw any firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ozone therapy for foot ulcers in people with DM.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The purpose of this review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review tried to find out whether ozone therapy is effective when given alone, or as part of a package of care, to treat foot ulcers in people with DM." } ]
query-laysum	22349	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCaries is one of the most prevalent, preventable conditions worldwide. A wide variety of management options are available at different thresholds of disease, ranging from non-operative preventive strategies such as improved oral hygiene, reduced sugar diet, and application of topical fluoride, to minimally invasive treatments for early lesions which are limited to enamel, through to selective removal and restoration for extensive lesions. The cornerstone of caries detection is a visual and tactile dental examination, however, an increasing array of methods of caries lesion detection have been proposed that could potentially support traditional methods of detection and diagnosis. Earlier identification of disease could afford patients the opportunity of less invasive treatment with less destruction of tooth tissue, reduce the need for treatment with aerosol-generating procedures, and potentially result in a reduced cost of care to the patient and to healthcare services.\nObjectives\nOur primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of different electrical conductance devices for the detection and diagnosis of non-cavitated coronal dental caries in different populations (children, adolescents, and adults) and when tested against different reference standards.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 April 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 April 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 26 April 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 26 April 2019). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included diagnostic accuracy studies that compared electrical conductance devices with a reference standard of histology or an enhanced visual examination. This included prospective studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of single index tests and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. We included studies using previously extracted teeth or those that recruited participants with teeth believed to be sound or with early lesions limited to enamel.\nStudies that explicitly recruited participants with more advanced lesions that were obviously into dentine or frankly cavitated were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data independently using a piloted study data extraction form based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for each study. This information was displayed as coupled forest plots, and plotted as summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) plots, displaying the sensitivity-specificity points for each study. Due to variability in thresholds we estimated diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) methods.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies reporting a total of 719 tooth sites or surfaces, with an overall prevalence of the target condition of 73% (528 tooth sites or surfaces). The included studies evaluated two index tests: the electronic caries monitor (ECM) (four studies, 475 tooth surfaces) and CarieScan Pro (three studies, 244 tooth surfaces). Six studies used histology as the reference standard, one used an enhanced visual examination. No study was considered to be at low risk of bias across all four domains or low concern for applicability or both. All studies were at high (five studies) or unclear (two studies) risk of bias for the patient selection domain. We judged two studies to be at unclear risk of bias for the index test domain, and one study to be at high risk of bias for the reference standard and flow and timing domains. We judged three studies to be at low concern for applicability for patient selection, and all seven studies to be of low concern for reference standard and flow and timing domains.\nStudies were synthesised using a hierarchical method for meta-analysis. There was variability in the results of the individual studies, with sensitivities which ranged from 0.55 to 0.98 and specificities from 0 to 1.00. These extreme values of specificity may be explained by a low number of healthy tooth surfaces in the included samples. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 15.65 (95% CI 1.43 to 171.15), and indicative of the variability in the included studies. Through meta-regression we observed no meaningful difference in accuracy according to device type or dentition. Due to the small number of studies we were unable to formally investigate other potential sources of heterogeneity.\nWe judged the certainty of the evidence as very low, and downgraded for risk of bias due to limitations in the design and conduct of the included studies, imprecision arising from the relatively small number of surfaces studied, and inconsistency due to the variability of results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe design and conduct of studies to determine the diagnostic accuracy of methods to detect and diagnose caries in situ is particularly challenging. The evidence base to support the detection and diagnosis of caries with electrical conductance devices is sparse. Newer electrical conductance devices show promise and further research at the enamel caries threshold using a robust study design to minimise bias is warranted. In terms of applicability, any future studies should be carried out in a clinical setting to provide a realistic assessment within the oral cavity where plaque, staining, and restorations can be problematic.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Researchers in Cochrane included seven studies with a total of 719 tooth sites or surfaces to answer this question. Due to the small number of tooth sites or surfaces studies, the results are very imprecise. We did not find any meaningful difference in accuracy according to type of device or the teeth of children/adolescents and adults." } ]
query-laysum	22350	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2007. Traditionally, after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery postoperative oral intake is withheld until the return of bowel function. There has been concern that early oral intake would result in vomiting and severe paralytic ileus with subsequent aspiration pneumonia, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leakage. However, evidence-based clinical studies suggest that there may be benefits from early postoperative oral intake.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of early versus delayed (traditional) initiation of oral intake of food and fluids after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL), and the citation lists of relevant publications. The most recent search was conducted 1 April 2014. We also searched a registry for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov) on 13 May 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible that compared the effect of early versus delayed initiation of oral intake of food and fluids after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery. Early feeding was defined as oral intake of fluids or food within 24 hours post-surgery regardless of the return of bowel function. Delayed feeding was defined as oral intake after 24 hours post-surgery and only after signs of postoperative ileus resolution.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors selected studies, assessed study quality and extracted the data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We examined continuous data using the mean difference (MD) and a 95% CI. We tested for heterogeneity between the results of different studies using a forest plot of the meta-analysis, the statistical tests of homogeneity of 2 x 2 tables and the I² value. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nRates of developing postoperative ileus were comparable between study groups (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.29, P = 0.14, 3 RCTs, 279 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). When we considered the rates of nausea or vomiting or both, there was no evidence of a difference between the study groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.67, P = 0.90, 4 RCTs, 484 women, I² = 73%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the study groups in abdominal distension (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.47, 2 RCTs, 301 women, I² = 0%) or a need for postoperative nasogastric tube placement (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.80, 1 RCT, 195 women).\nEarly feeding was associated with shorter time to the presence of bowel sound (MD -0.32 days, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.03, P = 0.03, 2 RCTs, 338 women, I² = 52%, moderate-quality evidence) and faster onset of flatus (MD -0.21 days, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.01, P = 0.04, 3 RCTs, 444 women, I² = 23%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, women in the early feeding group resumed a solid diet sooner (MD -1.47 days, 95% CI -2.26 to -0.68, P = 0.0003, 2 RCTs, 301 women, I² = 92%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in time to the first passage of stool between the two study groups (MD -0.25 days, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.09, P = 0.15, 2 RCTs, 249 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Hospital stay was shorter in the early feeding group (MD -0.92 days, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.31, P = 0.003, 4 RCTs, 484 women, I² = 68%, moderate-quality evidence). Infectious complications were less common in the early feeding group (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.73, P = 0.02, 2 RCTs, 183 women, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). In one study, the satisfaction score was significantly higher in the early feeding group (MD 11.10, 95% CI 6.68 to 15.52, P < 0.00001, 143 women, moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEarly postoperative feeding after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery for either benign or malignant conditions appeared to be safe without increased gastrointestinal morbidities or other postoperative complications. The benefits of this approach include faster recovery of bowel function, lower rates of infectious complications, shorter hospital stay, and higher satisfaction.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the Evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Most of the evidence was moderate quality. The main limitation was lack of blinding, which could influence the findings for subjective outcomes such as self-reported symptoms, hospital stay, patients' satisfaction and quality of life." } ]
query-laysum	22351	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHaemophilia is a genetic disorder characterized by spontaneous or provoked, often uncontrolled, bleeding into joints, muscles and other soft tissues. Current methods of treatment are expensive, challenging and involve regular administration of clotting factors. Gene therapy for haemophilia is a curative treatment modality currently under investigation. This is an update of a published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for treating people with haemophilia A or B.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.\nDate of last search: 17 April 2020.\nSelection criteria\nEligible trials include randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, including controlled clinical trials comparing gene therapy (with or without standard treatment) with standard treatment (factor replacement) or other 'curative' treatment such as stem cell transplantation for individuals with haemophilia A or B of all ages who do not have inhibitors to factor VIII or IX.\nData collection and analysis\nNo trials of gene therapy for haemophilia matching the inclusion criteria were identified.\nMain results\nNo trials of gene therapy for haemophilia matching the inclusion criteria were identified.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of gene therapy for haemophilia were identified. Thus, we are unable to determine the safety and efficacy of gene therapy for haemophilia. Gene therapy for haemophilia is still in clinical investigation and there is a need for well-designed clinical trials to assess the long-term feasibility, success and risks of gene therapy for people with haemophilia.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found no trials to provide reliable evidence about the risks or benefits of gene therapy for haemophilia. There is a need for trials that assess the long-term feasibility, success and risks of gene therapy for people with haemophilia." } ]
query-laysum	22352	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHydroxyurea (hydroxycarbamide) promotes the production of foetal haemoglobin (HbF) by reactivating gamma-genes. Evidence has shown clinical benefits of hydroxyurea in people with sickle cell anemia; however, only a few studies have assessed this treatment in people with beta (β)-thalassaemia.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective is to review the efficacy of hydroxyurea in reducing or ameliorating the requirement of blood transfusions in people with transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia. The second objective is to review the safety of hydroxyurea with regards to severe adverse effects in this population.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and hand searching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched electronic databases and trial registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and PubMed (09 October 2018).\nDate of last search of the Group's haemoglobinopathies trials register: 04 March 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of hydroxyurea in people with transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia, compared with placebo or standard treatment or comparing different doses of hydroxyurea.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trials for inclusion in the review, which was verified by a third author.\nMain results\nNo trials were eligible for inclusion in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is no high-quality evidence to support or challenge the continued use of hydroxyurea for managing people with transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia. Multicentre, randomised controlled trials (compared to placebo or other available treatment, i.e. blood transfusion and iron chelation) are needed in order to assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxyurea for reducing the need for blood transfusion, for maintaining or improving mean haemoglobin levels, as well as for determining its cost-effectiveness.\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": "β-thalassaemia is a blood disorder which is transferred by both parents to their children. In this condition less haemoglobin is produced. According to the WHO, almost 60,000 children with thalassaemia are born every year. Transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia is the severe form of β-thalassaemia, in which symptoms are clearly visible in the first six months of life. It can be fatal if left untreated, i.e. with blood transfusions. However, blood transfusions increase the chance of life-threatening viral infections and of iron overload in the body, which affects major organs. Medicines for removing iron from the body can reduce the risk of iron overload, but the cost of managing the disease can often become too high for individuals and their families. Hydroxyurea is reported to be effective in treating β-thalassaemia as it increases haemoglobin (blood) production and its benefits have previously been demonstrated." } ]
query-laysum	22353	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAortic dissection is a separation of the aortic wall, caused by blood flowing through a tear in the inner layer of the aorta. Aortic dissection is an infrequent but life-threatening condition. The incidence of aortic dissection is 3 to 6 per 10,000 per year in the Western population, and can be up to 43 per 10,000 per year in the Eastern population. Over 20% of people with an aortic dissection do not reach a hospital alive. After admission, the mortality rates for people with an aortic dissection are between 10% and 20% for those who received endovascular treatment, and between 20% and 30% for those who had open surgery.\nThoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the standard endovascular method to treat complicated type B aortic dissection (aortic dissections without involvement of the ascending aorta). Although TEVAR is less invasive than open surgery and has a better long-term aortic remodeling effect than conservative medical treatment, favourable aortic remodelling is usually limited to the thoracic aortic segment. TEVAR cannot be extended into the abdominal aorta because it could cover the ostia of the reno-visceral arteries. Thus, the abdominal aorta is still at risk of progressive aneurysmal degeneration. The PETTICOAT (provisional extension to induce complete attachment) technique, with proximal endograft and distal bare metal stent, was proposed in 2006 to address this issue. The concept of this technique was to implant a distal bare metal stent into the aortic true lumen, distal to the proximal endograft, to stabilize the distal collapsed intimal flap, while allowing blood flow to reno-visceral arteries. Therefore, the PETTICOAT technique was considered to be related to a more extensive aortic remodelling for people with type B aortic dissection, especially in the area of the abdominal aorta. However, it is still unclear whether the PETTICOAT technique is superior to standard TEVAR.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of combined proximal descending aortic endografting plus distal bare metal stenting versus conventional proximal descending aortic stent graft repair for treating complicated type B aortic dissections.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 5 November 2018. We also undertook reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all randomised controlled trials which compared the outcome of complicated type B aortic dissection, when treated by combined proximal descending aortic endografting plus distal bare metal stenting (PETTICOAT technique) versus conventional proximal descending aortic stent graft repair.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent review authors assessed all references identified by the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe found no trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified no randomised controlled trials and therefore cannot draw any definite conclusion on this topic. Evidence from non-randomised studies appears to be favourable in the short-term, for combined proximal descending aortic endografting plus distal bare metal stenting (PETTICOAT technique) to solve the problem of unfavourable distal aortic remodeling. Randomised controlled trials are warranted to provide solid evidence on this topic. Evidence from cohort studies with large sample sizes would also be helpful in guiding clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We were unable to assess the quality of evidence because of the absence of studies included in this review." } ]
query-laysum	22354	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMucopolysaccharidosis type VI (MPS VI) or Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome is a rare genetic disorder caused by the deficiency of arylsulphatase B. The resultant accumulation of dermatan sulphate causes lysosomal damage.\nThe clinical symptoms are related to skeletal dysplasia (i.e. short stature and degenerative joint disease). Other manifestations include cardiac disease, impaired pulmonary function, ophthalmological complications, hepatosplenomegaly, sinusitis, otitis, hearing loss and sleep apnea. Intellectual impairment is generally absent. Clinical manifestation is typically by two or three years of age; however, slowly progressive cases may not present until adulthood.\nEnzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with galsulfase is considered a new approach for treating MPS VI.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treating MPS VI by ERT with galsulfase compared to other interventions, placebo or no intervention.\nSearch methods\nEletronic searches were performed on the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register. Date of the latest search: 09 June 2021.\nFurther searches of the following databases were also performed: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Date of the latest search: 20 August 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical studies of ERT with galsulfase compared to other interventions or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the the evidence using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nOne study was included involving 39 participants who received either ERT with galsulfase (recombinant human arylsulphatase B) or placebo. This small study was considered overall to have an unclear risk of bias in relation to the design and implementation of the study, since the authors did not report how both the allocation generation and concealment were performed.\nGiven the very low certainty of the evidence, we are uncertain whether at 24 weeks there was a difference between groups in relation to the 12-minute walk test, mean difference (MD) of 92.00 meters (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.00 to 172.00), or the three-minute stair climb, MD 5.70 (95% CI -0.10 to 11.50).\nIn relation to respiratory tests, we are uncertain whether galsulfase makes any difference as compared to placebo in forced vital capacity in litres (FVC (L) (absolute change in baseline), given the very low certainty of the evidence. Cardiac function was not reported in the included study. We found that galsulfase, as compared to placebo, may decrease urinary glycosaminoglycan levels at 24 weeks, MD -227.00 (95% CI -264.00 to -190.00) (low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether there are differences between the galsulfase and placebo groups in relation to adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). In general, the dose of galsulfase was well tolerated and there were no differences between groups. These events include drug-related adverse events, serious and severe adverse events, those during infusion, drug-related adverse events during infusion, and deaths. More infusion-related reactions were observed in the galsulfase group and were managed with interruption or slowing of infusion rate or administration of antihistamines or corticosteroids drugs. No deaths occurred during the study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review are based only on one small study (a 24-week randomised phase of the study and prior to the open-label extension). We are uncertain whether galsulfase is more effective than placebo, for treating people with MPS VI, in relation to the 12-minute walk test or the three-minute stair climb, as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. We found that galsulfase may reduce urinary glycosaminoglycans levels. We are also uncertain whether there are any differences between treatment groups in relation to cardiac or pulmonary functions, liver or spleen volume, overnight apnea-hypopnea, height and weight, quality of life and adverse effects.\nFurther studies are needed to obtain more information on the long-term effectiveness and safety of ERT with galsulfase.\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": "Mucopolysaccharidosis type VI (MPS VI) is a rare genetic disorder where there is a lack of the enzyme arylsulphatase B. It is a progressive and life-limiting condition with a range of symptoms, which may include coarse facial features, reduced joint mobility, short stature and problems with the eyes, lungs and heart.\nBefore ERT was available, it was only possible to treat the symptoms of MPS VI and not the underlying condition. Treatment with ERT allows the missing enzyme to be replaced to try to reduce the effects of the disease and prevent it getting worse." } ]
query-laysum	22355	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings.\nCo-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.\nMain results\nWe included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies.\nOf the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.\nAzithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients\nWe are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days.\nAzithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients\nAzithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days.\nAzithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients\nOne study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome.\nAnother study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19.\nWith accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "" } ]
query-laysum	22356	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with multiple sclerosis (MS) have complex symptoms and different types of needs. These demands include how to manage the burden of physical disability as well as how to organise daily life, restructure social roles in the family and at work, preserve personal identity and community roles, keep self-sufficiency in personal care, and how to be part of an integrated care network. Palliative care teams are trained to keep open full and competent lines of communication about symptoms and disease progression, advanced care planning, and end-of-life issues and wishes. Teams create a treatment plan for the total management of symptoms, supporting people and families on decision-making. Despite advances in research and the existence of many interventions to reduce disease activity or to slow the progression of MS, this condition remains a life-limiting disease with symptoms that impact negatively the lives of people with it and their families.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of palliative care interventions compared to usual care for people with any form of multiple sclerosis: relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), secondary-progressive MS (SPMS), primary-progressive MS (PPMS), and progressive-relapsing MS (PRMS) We also aimed to compare the effects of different palliative care interventions.\nSearch methods\nOn 31 October 2018, we conducted a literature search in the specialised register of the Cochrane MS and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Review Group, which contains trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched PsycINFO, PEDro and Opengrey. We also handsearched relevant journals and screened the reference lists of published reviews. We contacted researchers in palliative care and multiple sclerosis.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, as well as the first phase of cross-over trials. We included studies that compared palliative care interventions versus usual care. We also included studies that compared palliative care interventions versus another type of palliative interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We summarised key results and certainty of evidence in a 'Summary of Finding' table that reported outcomes at six or more months of post-intervention.\nMain results\nThree studies (146 participants) met our selection criteria. Two studies compared multidisciplinary, fast-track palliative care versus multidisciplinary standard care while on a waiting-list control, and one study compared a multidisciplinary palliative approach versus multidisciplinary standard care at different time points (12, 16, and 24 weeks). Two were RCTs with parallel design (total 94 participants) and one was a cross-over design (52 participants). The three studies assessed palliative care as a home-based intervention. One of the three studies included participants with 'neurodegenerative diseases', with MS people being a subset of the randomised population. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias' tool.\nWe found no evidence of differences between intervention and control groups in long-time follow-up (> six months post-intervention) for the following outcomes: mean change in health-related quality of life (SEIQoL - higher scores mean better quality of life; MD 4.80, 95% CI -12.32 to 21.92; participants = 62; studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.12; participants = 76; studies = 1, 22 events, low-certainty evidence) and hospital admission (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.52; participants = 76; studies = 1, 10 events, low-certainty evidence).\nThe three included studies did not assess the following outcomes at long term follow-up (> six months post intervention): fatigue, anxiety, depression, disability, cognitive function, relapse-free survival, and sustained progression-free survival.\nWe did not find any trial that compared different types of palliative care with each other.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the findings of the RCTs included in this review, we are uncertain whether palliative care interventions are beneficial for people with MS. There is low- or very low-certainty evidence regarding the difference between palliative care interventions versus usual care for long-term health-related quality of life, adverse events, and hospital admission in patients with MS. For intermediate-term follow-up, we are also uncertain about the effects of palliative care for the outcomes: health-related quality of life (measured by different assessments: SEIQoL or MSIS), disability, anxiety, and depression.\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": "Three studies involving 146 participants were included in this review. All three studies compared palliative care delivered in home visits versus usual care for people with MS. Two studies included only participants with MS. The third study (Ne-PAL) included participants with MS and other neurodegenerative diseases. In all three studies, interventions focused on assessment and management of symptoms and end-of-life planning. We did not find studies that compared different types of palliative care with each other." } ]
query-laysum	22357	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia.\nThe treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications.\nCurrently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo).\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nOur primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life.\nMain results\nWe included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies.\nFourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low.\nCorticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty).\nCorticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty).\nCorticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty).\nCorticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty).\nNine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission.\nBiologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty).\nBiologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty).\nBiologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty).\nThere may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCorticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo.\nBiologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "" } ]
query-laysum	22358	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGlobally, sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders, due to the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta globin) genes. SCD can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are used to treat complications of SCD, e.g. acute chest syndrome (ACS) (this often involves a single transfusion episode), or they can be part of a regular long-term transfusion programme to prevent SCD complications.\nObjectives\nTo summarize the evidence in Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness and safety of RBC transfusions versus no transfusion, or restrictive (to increase the total haemoglobin) versus liberal (to decrease the haemoglobin S level below a specified percentage) transfusion, for treating or preventing complications experienced by people with SCD.\nMethods\nWe included Cochrane Reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, that addressed various SCD complications and had RBC transfusion as an intervention or comparator. We assessed the methodological quality of included reviews according to the AMSTAR quality assessment.\nMain results\nWe included 15 Cochrane Reviews, 10 of which had no included studies with an RBC transfusion intervention (five reported RCTs with other interventions; and five contained no studies). Five of the 15 reviews included participants randomised to RBC transfusion, but in one of these reviews only 10 participants were randomised with no usable data. Four reviews (nine trials with 1502 participants) reported data comparing short- or long-term RBC transfusions versus standard care, disease-modifying agents, a restrictive versus a liberal transfusion strategy and long-term RBC transfusions versus transfusions to treat complications. All reviews were of high quality according to AMSTAR quality assessment, however, the quality of the included trials was highly variable across outcomes. Trials were downgraded according to GRADE methodology for risk of bias, indirectness (most trials were conducted in children with HbSS), and imprecision (outcomes had wide confidence intervals).\nIn all four reviews and all comparisons there was little or no difference in the risk of death (very low-quality evidence). There were either no deaths or death was a rare event.\nShort-term RBC transfusion versus standard care (one review: two trials, 434 participants, GRADE very low- to low-quality evidence)\nIn people undergoing low- to medium-risk surgery, RBC transfusions may decrease the risk of acute chest syndrome (ACS) in people with African haplotypes compared to standard care (low-quality evidence), but there was little or no difference in people with the Arabic haplotype (very-low quality evidence). There was also little or no difference in the risk of other SCD-related or transfusion-related complications (very-low quality evidence).\nLong-term RBC transfusion versus standard care (two reviews: three trials, 405 participants, very low- to moderate-quality evidence)\nIn children and adolescents at high risk of stroke (abnormal transcranial doppler (TCD) velocities or silent cerebral infarct (SCI)), long-term RBC transfusions probably decrease the risk of stroke (moderate-quality evidence) and may decrease the risk of ACS and painful crisis compared to standard care (low-quality evidence). Long-term RBC transfusions may also decrease the risk of SCI in children with abnormal TCD velocities (low-quality evidence), but there may be little or no difference in the risk of SCI in children with normal TCD velocities and previous SCI (low-quality evidence).\nIn children and adolescents already receiving long-term RBC transfusions for preventing stroke, in comparison to standard care, continuing long-term RBC transfusions may reduce the risk of SCI (low-quality evidence) but we do not know whether there is a difference in the risk of stroke (very-low quality evidence). In children with normal TCD velocities and SCI there was little or no difference in the risk of alloimmunisation or transfusion reactions, but RBC transfusions may increase the risk of iron overload (low-quality evidence).\nLong-term RBC transfusion versus RBC transfusion to treat complications (one review: one trial, 72 participants, very low- to low-quality evidence)\nIn pregnant women, long-term RBC transfusions may decrease the risk of painful crisis compared to transfusion for complications (low-quality evidence); but there may be little or no difference in the risk of other SCD-related complications or transfusion reactions (very-low quality evidence).\nRBC transfusion versus disease-modifying agents (hydroxyurea) (two reviews: two trials; 254 participants, very low- to low-quality evidence)\nFor primary prevention of stroke in children, with abnormal TCD and no severe vasculopathy on magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance angiography (MRI/MRA), who have received at least one year of RBC transfusions, we do not know whether there is a difference between RBC transfusion and disease-modifying agents in the risk of stroke; SCI; ACS; or painful crisis (very-low quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the risk of iron overload (low-quality evidence).\nSimilarly, for secondary prevention of stroke in children and adolescents, we do not know whether there is a difference between these interventions in the risk of stroke; SCI; or ACS (very-low quality evidence); but hydroxyurea with phlebotomy may increase the risk of painful crisis and global SCD serious adverse events compared to RBC transfusion (low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the risk of iron overload (low-quality evidence).\nRestrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategy (one review: one trial; 230 participants, very low-quality evidence)\nIn people undergoing cholecystectomy, there was little or no difference between strategies in the risk of SCD-related or transfusion-related complications (very-low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis overview provides support from two high-quality Cochrane Reviews for the use of RBC transfusions in preventing stroke in children and adolescents at high risk of stroke (abnormal TCDs or SCI) and evidence that it may decrease the risk of SCI in children with abnormal TCD velocities. In addition RBC transfusions may reduce the risk of ACS and painful crisis in this population.\nThis overview highlights the lack of high-quality evidence in adults with SCD and the number of reviews that have no evidence for the use of RBC transfusions across a spectrum of SCD complications. Also of concern is the variable and often incomplete reporting of patient-relevant outcomes in the included trials such as SCD-related serious adverse events and quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "SCD is a serious inherited blood disorder where the RBCs, which carry oxygen around the body, develop abnormally. Normal RBCs are flexible and disc-shaped, but in SCD they can become rigid and crescent shaped. Sickled cells are not only less flexible than healthy RBCs, they are also stickier. This can lead to the blockage of blood vessels, resulting in tissue and organ damage and episodes of severe pain. The abnormal RBCs are more fragile and break apart, which leads to fewer of them, known as anaemia." } ]
query-laysum	22359	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPay-for-Performance (P4P) is a payment model that rewards health care providers for meeting pre-defined targets for quality indicators or efficacy parameters to increase the quality or efficacy of care.\nObjectives\nOur objective was to assess the impact of P4P for in-hospital delivered health care on the quality of care, resource use and equity. Our objective was not only to answer the question whether P4P works in general (simple perspective) but to provide a comprehensive and detailed overview of P4P with a focus on analyzing the intervention components, the context factors and their interrelation (more complex perspective).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trial registers on 27 June 2018. In addition, we searched conference proceedings, gray literature and web pages of relevant health care institutions, contacted experts in the field, conducted cited reference searches and performed cross-checks of included references and systematic reviews on the same topic.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized trials, cluster randomized trials, non-randomized clustered trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series and repeated measures studies that analyzed hospitals, hospital units or groups of hospitals and that compared any kind of P4P to a basic payment scheme (e.g. capitation) without P4P. Studies had to analyze at least one of the following outcomes to be eligible: patient outcomes; quality of care; utilization, coverage or access; resource use, costs and cost shifting; healthcare provider outcomes; equity; adverse effects or harms.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all citations for inclusion, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. Study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second.\nWe did not perform meta-analysis because the included studies were too heterogenous regarding hospital characteristics, the design of the P4P programs and study design. Instead we present a structured narrative synthesis considering the complexity as well as the context/setting of the intervention. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and present the results narratively in 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included 27 studies (20 CBA, 7 ITS) on six different P4P programs. Studies analyzed between 10 and 4267 centers. All P4P programs targeted acute or emergency physical conditions and compared a capitation-based payment scheme without P4P to the same capitation-based payment scheme combined with a P4P add-on. Two P4P program used rewards or penalties; one used first rewards and than penalties; two used penalties only and one used rewards only. Four P4P programs were established and evaluated in the USA, one in England and one in France.\nMost studies showed no difference or a very small effect in favor of the P4P program. The impact of each P4P program was as follows.\nPremier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration Program: It is uncertain whether this program, which used rewards for some hospitals and penalties for others, has an impact on mortality, adverse clinical events, quality of care, equity or resource use as the certainty of the evidence was very low.\nValue-Based Purchasing Program: It is uncertain whether this program, which used rewards for some hospitals and penalties for others, has an impact on mortality, adverse clinical events or quality of care as the certainty of the evidence was very low. Equity and resource use outcomes were not reported in the studies, which evaluated this program.\nNon-payment for Hospital-Acquired Conditions Program: It is uncertain whether this penalty-based program has an impact on adverse clinical events as the certainty of the evidence was very low. Mortality, quality of care, equity and resource use outcomes were not reported in the studies, which evaluated this program.\nHospital Readmissions Reduction Program: None of the studies that examined this penalty-based program reported mortality, adverse clinical events, quality of care (process quality score), equity or resource use outcomes.\nAdvancing Quality Program: It is uncertain whether this reward-/penalty-based program has an impact on mortality as the certainty of the evidence was very low. Adverse clinical events, quality of care, equity and resource use outcomes were not reported in any study.\nFinancial Incentive to Quality Improvement Program: It is uncertain whether this reward-based program has an impact on quality of care, as the certainty of the evidence was very low. Mortality, adverse clinical events, equity and resource use outcomes were not reported in any study.\nSubgroup analysis (analysis of modifying design and context factors)\nAnalysis of P4P design factors provides some hints that non-payments compared to additional payments and payments for quality attainment (e.g. falling below specified mortality threshold) compared to quality improvement (e.g. reduction of mortality by specified percent points within one year) may have a stronger impact on performance.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is uncertain whether P4P, compared to capitation-based payments without P4P for hospitals, has an impact on patient outcomes, quality of care, equity or resource use as the certainty of the evidence was very low (or we found no studies on the outcome) for all P4P programs. The effects on patient outcomes of P4P in hospitals were at most small, regardless of design factors and context/setting. It seems that with additional payments only small short-term but non-sustainable effects can be achieved. Non-payments seem to be slightly more effective than bonuses and payments for quality attainment seem to be slightly more effective than payments for quality improvement.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The payment method for reimbursing health care delivered in hospitals can have an impact on patient outcomes, quality of care, equity, utilization, health care provider outcomes (e.g. workload) and adverse effects. The Cochrane researchers assessed the impact of payment methods that are based on hospital performance (e.g. hospital-acquired infections) and are thereby aiming to stimulate an improvement of hospital performance." } ]
query-laysum	22360	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary tuberculosis is usually diagnosed when symptomatic individuals seek care at healthcare facilities, and healthcare workers have a minimal role in promoting the health-seeking behaviour. However, some policy specialists believe the healthcare system could be more active in tuberculosis diagnosis to increase tuberculosis case detection.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies to increase tuberculosis case detection through improving access (geographical, financial, educational) to tuberculosis diagnosis at primary healthcare or community-level services.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases for relevant studies up to 19 December 2016: the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library, Issue 12, 2016; MEDLINE; Embase; Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index; BIOSIS Previews; and Scopus. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized and non-randomized controlled studies comparing any intervention that aims to improve access to a tuberculosis diagnosis, with no intervention or an alternative intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We compared interventions using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included nine cluster-randomized trials, one individual randomized trial, and seven non-randomized controlled studies. Nine studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), six in Asia (Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Nepal, and Pakistan), and two in South America (Brazil and Colombia); which are all high tuberculosis prevalence areas.\nTuberculosis outreach screening, using house-to-house visits, sometimes combined with printed information about going to clinic, may increase tuberculosis case detection (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.79; 4 trials, 6,458,591 participants in 297 clusters, low-certainty evidence); and probably increases case detection in areas with tuberculosis prevalence of 5% or more (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.09; 3 trials, 155,918 participants, moderate-certainty evidence; prespecified stratified analysis). These interventions may lower the early default (prior to starting treatment) or default during treatment (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96; 3 trials, 849 participants, low-certainty evidence). However, this intervention may have may have little or no effect on treatment success (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.15; 3 trials, 849 participants, low-certainty evidence), and we do not know if there is an effect on treatment failure or mortality. One study investigated long-term prevalence in the community, but with no clear effect due to imprecision and differences in care between the two groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00; 1 trial, 556,836 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nFour studies examined health promotion activities to encourage people to attend for screening, including mass media strategies and more locally organized activities. There was some increase, but this could have been related to temporal trends, with no corresponding increase in case notifications, and no evidence of an effect on long-term tuberculosis prevalence. Two studies examined the effects of two to six nurse practitioner educational sessions in tuberculosis diagnosis, with no clear effect on tuberculosis cases detected. One trial compared mobile clinics every five days with house-to-house screening every six months, and showed an increase in tuberculosis cases.\nThere was also insufficient evidence to determine if sustained improvements in case detection impact on long-term tuberculosis prevalence; this was evaluated in one study, which indicated little or no effect after four years of either contact tracing, extensive health promotion activities, or both (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.30; 1 study, 405,788 participants in 12 clusters, very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence demonstrates that when used in appropriate settings, active case-finding approaches may result in increase in tuberculosis case detection in the short term. The effect of active case finding on treatment outcome needs to be further evaluated in sufficiently powered studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What the research says\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "House-to-house screening for active tuberculosis, and organizing tuberculosis diagnostic clinics nearer to where people live and work, may increase tuberculosis case detection in settings where the prevalence of undiagnosed disease is high (low-certainty evidence). These people may have higher levels of treatment success and lower levels of default from treatment (low-certainty evidence).\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine if health promotion activities alone increase tuberculosis case detection (very low-certainty evidence).\nThere was also insufficient evidence to determine if sustained improvements in case detection impact on long-term tuberculosis prevalence, as the only study to evaluate this found no effect after four years (very low-certainty evidence)." } ]
query-laysum	22361	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite evidence of the long-term implications of unrelieved pain during infancy, it is evident that infant pain is still under-managed and unmanaged. Inadequately managed pain in infancy, a period of exponential development, can have implications across the lifespan. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic review of pain management strategies is integral to appropriate infant pain management. This is an update of a previously published review update in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2015, Issue 12) of the same title.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and adverse events of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (aged up to three years) acute pain, excluding kangaroo care, sucrose, breastfeeding/breast milk, and music.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE-Ovid platform, EMBASE-OVID platform, PsycINFO-OVID platform, CINAHL-EBSCO platform and trial registration websites (ClinicalTrials.gov; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) (March 2015 to October 2020). An update search was completed in July 2022, but studies identified at this point were added to 'Awaiting classification' for a future update.\nWe also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves.\nWe incorporated 76 new studies into the review.\nSelection criteria\nParticipants included infants from birth to three years in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cross-over RCTs that had a no-treatment control comparison. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis if they compared a non-pharmacological pain management strategy to a no-treatment control group (15 different strategies). In addition, we also analysed studies when the unique effect of adding a non-pharmacological pain management strategy onto another pain management strategy could be assessed (i.e. additive effects on a sweet solution, non-nutritive sucking, or swaddling) (three strategies). The eligible control groups for these additive studies were sweet solution only, non-nutritive sucking only, or swaddling only, respectively. Finally, we qualitatively described six interventions that met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, but not in the analysis.\nData collection and analysis\nThe outcomes assessed in the review were pain response (reactivity and regulation) and adverse events. The level of certainty in the evidence and risk of bias were based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach. We analysed the standardised mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method to determine effect sizes.\nMain results\nWe included total of 138 studies (11,058 participants), which includes an additional 76 new studies for this update. Of these 138 studies, we analysed 115 (9048 participants) and described 23 (2010 participants) qualitatively. We described qualitatively studies that could not be meta-analysed due to being the only studies in their category or statistical reporting issues. We report the results of the 138 included studies here. An SMD effect size of 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.8 a large effect. The thresholds for the I2 interpretation were established as follows: not important (0% to 40%); moderate heterogeneity (30% to 60%); substantial heterogeneity (50% to 90%); considerable heterogeneity (75% to 100%). The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel sticks (63 studies) and needlestick procedures for the purposes of vaccines/vitamins (35 studies). We judged most studies to have high risk of bias (103 out of 138), with the most common methodological concerns relating to blinding of personnel and outcome assessors. Pain responses were examined during two separate pain phases: pain reactivity (within the first 30 seconds after the acutely painful stimulus) and immediate pain regulation (after the first 30 seconds following the acutely painful stimulus). We report below the strategies with the strongest evidence base for each age group.\nIn preterm born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.11, moderate effect; I2 = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.27, moderate effect; I2 = 81%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. Facilitated tucking may also reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.58, large effect; I2 = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.26, moderate effect; I2 = 87%, considerable heterogeneity); however, this is also based on very low-certainty evidence. While swaddling likely does not reduce pain reactivity in preterm neonates (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.04, no effect; I2 = 91%, considerable heterogeneity), it has been shown to possibly improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.21, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.38, large effect; I2 = 89%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence.\nIn full-term born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.13, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.68, large effect; I2 = 82%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.78, large effect; I2 = 92%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence.\nIn full-term born older infants, structured parent involvement was the intervention most studied. Results showed that this intervention has little to no effect in reducing pain reactivity (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03, no effect; I2 = 46%, moderate heterogeneity) or improving immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.21, no effect; I2 = 74%, substantial heterogeneity), based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence.\nOf these five interventions most studied, only two studies observed adverse events, specifically vomiting (one preterm neonate) and desaturation (one full-term neonate hospitalised in the NICU) following the non-nutritive sucking intervention. The presence of considerable heterogeneity limited our confidence in the findings for certain analyses, as did the preponderance of evidence of very low to low certainty based on GRADE judgements.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, and swaddling may reduce pain behaviours in preterm born neonates. Non-nutritive sucking may also reduce pain behaviours in full-term neonates. No interventions based on a substantial body of evidence showed promise in reducing pain behaviours in older infants. Most analyses were based on very low- or low-certainty grades of evidence and none were based on high-certainty evidence. Therefore, the lack of confidence in the evidence would require further research before we could draw a definitive conclusion.\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 assessed 24 different strategies for reducing young children's pain after medical procedures using care-giving strategies that do not require medication, such as using a pacifier, swaddling a child, and massaging a child. We compared the pain-reducing effects of these strategies to groups receiving no pain management strategies. When possible, we also compared groups receiving one strategy to those receiving multiple strategies to see whether multiple strategies lead to more pain reduction. We looked at whether there was a difference in the impact of the interventions depending on whether the infant had just had the painful procedure (pain reactivity phase), as opposed to calming down from the peak distress (immediate pain regulation phase).\nWe converted different measures of pain intensity (coded by either trained nurses or research staff) into a standard scale to help readers interpret the findings. The standard scale ranges from 0 to 21, with 0 being no pain and 21 being very severe pain." } ]
query-laysum	22362	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute high altitude illness is defined as a group of cerebral and pulmonary syndromes that can occur during travel to high altitudes. It is more common above 2500 metres, but can be seen at lower elevations, especially in susceptible people. Acute high altitude illness includes a wide spectrum of syndromes defined under the terms 'acute mountain sickness' (AMS), 'high altitude cerebral oedema' and 'high altitude pulmonary oedema'. There are several interventions available to treat this condition, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological; however, there is a great uncertainty regarding their benefits and harms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical effectiveness, and safety of interventions (non-pharmacological and pharmacological), as monotherapy or in any combination, for treating acute high altitude illness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, Wanfang database and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing studies on 10 August 2017. We did not apply any language restriction.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for individuals suffering from acute high altitude illness: acute mountain sickness, high altitude pulmonary oedema or high altitude cerebral oedema.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of study reports, the risk of bias for each and performed the data extraction. We resolved disagreements through discussion with a third author. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies enrolling a total of 468 participants. We identified two ongoing studies. All studies included adults, and two studies included both teenagers and adults. The 13 studies took place in high altitude areas, mostly in the European Alps. Twelve studies included participants with acute mountain sickness, and one study included participants with high altitude pulmonary oedema. Follow-up was usually less than one day. We downgraded the quality of the evidence in most cases due to risk of bias and imprecision. We report results for the main comparisons as follows.\nNon-pharmacological interventions (3 studies, 124 participants)\nAll-cause mortality and complete relief of AMS symptoms were not reported in the three included trials. One study in 64 participants found that a simulated descent of 193 millibars versus 20 millibars may reduce the average of symptoms to 2.5 vs 3.1 units after 12 hours of treatment (clinical score ranged from 0 to 11 ‒ worse; reduction of 0.6 points on average with the intervention; low quality of evidence). In addition, no complications were found with use of hyperbaric chambers versus supplementary oxygen (one study; 29 participants; low-quality evidence).\nPharmacological interventions (11 trials, 375 participants)\nAll-cause mortality was not reported in the 11 included trials. One trial found a greater proportion of participants with complete relief of AMS symptoms after 12 and 16 hours when dexamethasone was administered in comparison with placebo (47.1% versus 0%, respectively; one study; 35 participants; low quality of evidence). Likewise, when acetazolamide was compared with placebo, the effects on symptom severity was uncertain (standardized mean difference (SMD) −1.15, 95% CI −2.56 to 0.27; 2 studies, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). One trial of dexamethasone in comparison with placebo in 35 participants found a reduction in symptom severity (difference on change in the AMS score: 3.7 units reported by authors; moderate quality of evidence). The effects from two additional trials comparing gabapentin with placebo and magnesium with placebo on symptom severity at the end of treatment were uncertain. For gabapentin versus placebo: mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 2.92 versus 4.75, respectively; 24 participants; low quality of evidence. For magnesium versus placebo: mean scores of 9 and 10.3 units, respectively; 25 participants; low quality of evidence). The trials did not find adverse events from either treatment (low quality of evidence). One trial comparing magnesium sulphate versus placebo found that flushing was a frequent event in the magnesium sulphate arm (percentage of flushing: 75% versus 7.7%, respectively; one study; 25 participants; low quality of evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited available evidence to determine the effects of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions in treating acute high altitude illness. Low-quality evidence suggests that dexamethasone and acetazolamide might reduce AMS score compared to placebo. However, the clinical benefits and harms related to these potential interventions remain unclear. Overall, the evidence is of limited practical significance in the clinical field. High-quality research in this field is needed, since most trials were poorly conducted and reported.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The quality of the evidence we found was low, and thus our certainty in the findings is limited. There was insufficient information on how the studies were conducted, and in some cases there was evidence of tampering at some stages of the trials. Furthermore, the number of persons in each study was very small (< 30 participants), and therefore the results were not clear (imprecise). Some studies were not blinded (that is, participants knew what experimental treatment they were receiving), and this could have affected how the participants evaluated their own symptoms." } ]
query-laysum	22363	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe projected rise in the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) could develop into a substantial health problem worldwide. Whether insulin secretagogues (sulphonylureas and meglitinide analogues) are able to prevent or delay T2DM and its associated complications in people at risk for the development of T2DM is unknown.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of insulin secretagogues on the prevention or delay of T2DM and its associated complications in people with impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting blood glucose, moderately elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or any combination of these.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials. The date of the last search of all databases was April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 12 weeks or more comparing insulin secretagogues with any pharmacological glucose-lowering intervention, behaviour-changing intervention, placebo or no intervention in people with impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, moderately elevated HbA1c or combinations of these.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed quality and extracted outcome data independently. One review author extracted data which were checked by a second review author. We resolved discrepancies by consensus or the involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We carried out trial sequential analyses (TSAs) for all outcomes that could be meta-analysed. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs with 10,018 participants; 4791 participants with data on allocation to intervention groups were randomised to a second- or third-generation sulphonylurea or a meglitinide analogue as monotherapy and 29 participants were randomised to a second-generation sulphonylurea plus metformin. Three trials investigated a second-generation sulphonylurea, two trials investigated a third-generation sulphonylurea and one trial a meglitinide analogue. A total of 4873 participants with data on allocation to control groups were randomised to a comparator group; 4820 participants were randomised to placebo, 23 to diet and exercise, and 30 participants to metformin monotherapy. One RCT of nateglinide contributed 95% of all participants. The duration of the intervention varied from six months to five years. We judged none of the included trials as at low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains.\nAll-cause and cardiovascular mortality following sulphonylurea (glimepiride) treatment were rarely observed (very low-quality evidence). The RR for incidence of T2DM comparing glimepiride monotherapy with placebo was 0.75; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.04; P = 0.08; 2 trials; 307 participants; very low-quality evidence. One of the trials reporting on the incidence of T2DM did not define the diagnostic criteria used. The other trial diagnosed T2DM as two consecutive fasting blood glucose values ≥ 6.1 mmol/L. TSA showed that only 4.5% of the diversity-adjusted required information size was accrued so far. No trial reported data on serious adverse events, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, congestive heart failure (HF), health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects.\nOne trial with a follow-up of five years compared a meglitinide analogue (nateglinide) with placebo. A total of 310/4645 (6.7%) participants allocated to nateglinide died compared with 312/4661 (6.7%) participants allocated to placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.17; P = 0.98; moderate-quality evidence). The two main criteria for diagnosing T2DM were a fasting plasma glucose level ≥ 7.0 mmol/L or a 2-hour post challenge glucose ≥ 11.1 mmol/L. T2DM developed in 1674/4645 (36.0%) participants in the nateglinide group and in 1580/4661 (33.9%) in the placebo group (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.15; P = 0.05; moderate-quality evidence). One or more serious adverse event was reported in 2066/4602 (44.9%) participants allocated to nateglinide compared with 2089/4599 (45.6%) participants allocated to placebo. A total of 126/4645 (2.7%) participants allocated to nateglinide died because of cardiovascular disease compared with 118/4661 (2.5%) participants allocated to placebo (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.38; P = 0.60; moderate-quality evidence). Comparing participants receiving nateglinide with those receiving placebo for the outcomes MI, non-fatal stroke and HF gave the following event rates: MI 116/4645 (2.5%) versus 122/4661 (2.6%), stroke 100/4645 (2.2%) versus 110/4661 (2.4%) and numbers hospitalised for HF 85/4645 (1.8%) versus 100/4661 (2.1%) - (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.14; P = 0.27). The quality of the evidence was moderate for all these outcomes. Health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether insulin secretagogues compared mainly with placebo reduce the risk of developing T2DM and its associated complications in people at increased risk for the development of T2DM. Most trials did not investigate patient-important outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Few participants died following treatment with sulphonylureas. Sulphonylureas (most of the evidence was available for glimepiride) did not reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with placebo. No study with sulphonylureas reported on serious side effects, non-fatal heart attacks, non-fatal stroke, heart failure, health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects.\nOnly one study reported data on a meglitinide analogue (nateglinide). This large study contributed 95% of all participants of our review. We could not establish firm evidence on the outcomes death from any cause, risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus or serious side effects. This study did not report on health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects.\nFuture studies should investigate patient-important outcomes and, especially, the side effects of the medications, because we do not know for sure whether 'prediabetes' is just a condition arbitrarily defined by a laboratory measurement or is in fact a real risk factor for type 2 diabetes mellitus, which might be treatable." } ]
query-laysum	22364	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDifferent bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text.\nTreatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab.\nThe adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to no treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking.\nTreatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants).\nCompared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants).\nTreatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants).\nDue to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range −9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We conducted thorough searches in various databases until 23 March 2020. We included 25 studies comparing different bone-modifying agents with each other or against no further treatment or placebo treatment (dummy treatment) in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases." } ]
query-laysum	22365	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChild sexual abuse is a significant global problem in both magnitude and sequelae. The most widely used primary prevention strategy has been the provision of school-based education programmes. Although programmes have been taught in schools since the 1980s, their effectiveness requires ongoing scrutiny.\nObjectives\nTo systematically assess evidence of the effectiveness of school-based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse. Specifically, to assess whether: programmes are effective in improving students' protective behaviours and knowledge about sexual abuse prevention; behaviours and skills are retained over time; and participation results in disclosures of sexual abuse, produces harms, or both.\nSearch methods\nIn September 2014, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and 11 other databases. We also searched two trials registers and screened the reference lists of previous reviews for additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs of school-based education interventions for the prevention of child sexual abuse compared with another intervention or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We summarised data for six outcomes: protective behaviours; knowledge of sexual abuse or sexual abuse prevention concepts; retention of protective behaviours over time; retention of knowledge over time; harm; and disclosures of sexual abuse.\nMain results\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review that included 15 trials (up to August 2006). We identified 10 additional trials for the period to September 2014. We excluded one trial from the original review. Therefore, this update includes a total of 24 trials (5802 participants). We conducted several meta-analyses. More than half of the trials in each meta-analysis contained unit of analysis errors.\n1. Meta-analysis of two trials (n = 102) evaluating protective behaviours favoured intervention (odds ratio (OR) 5.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98 to 16.51), with borderline low to moderate heterogeneity (Chi² = 1.37, df = 1, P value = 0.24, I² = 27%, Tau² = 0.16). The results did not change when we made adjustments using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to correct errors made in studies where data were analysed without accounting for the clustering of students in classes or schools.\n2. Meta-analysis of 18 trials (n = 4657) evaluating questionnaire-based knowledge favoured intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.78), but there was substantial heterogeneity (Chi² = 104.76, df = 17, P value < 0.00001, I² = 84%, Tau² = 0.10). The results did not change when adjusted for clustering (ICC: 0.1 SMD 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.81; ICC: 0.2 SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.77).\n3. Meta-analysis of 11 trials (n =1688) evaluating vignette-based knowledge favoured intervention (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.65), but there was substantial heterogeneity (Chi² = 34.25, df = 10, P value < 0.0002, I² = 71%, Tau² = 0.08). The results did not change when adjusted for clustering (ICC: 0.1 SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.74; ICC: 0.2 SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89).\n4. We included four trials in the meta-analysis for retention of knowledge over time. The effect of intervention seemed to persist beyond the immediate assessment (SMD 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.17; I² = 84%, Tau² = 0.13, P value = 0.0003; n = 956) to six months (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87; I² = 25%; Tau² = 0.01, P value = 0.26; n = 929). The results did not change when adjustments were made using ICCs.\n5. We included three studies in the meta-analysis for adverse effects (harm) manifesting as child anxiety or fear. The results showed no increase or decrease in anxiety or fear in intervention participants (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.07; n = 795) and there was no heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P value = 0.79; n=795). The results did not change when adjustments were made using ICCs.\n6. We included three studies (n = 1788) in the meta-analysis for disclosure of previous or current sexual abuse. The results favoured intervention (OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 11.24), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P value = 0.84). However, adjusting for the effect of clustering had the effect of widening the confidence intervals around the OR (ICC: 0.1 OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 12.33; ICC: 0.2 OR 2.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 12.61).\nInsufficient information was provided in the included studies to conduct planned subgroup analyses and there were insufficient studies to conduct meaningful analyses.\nThe quality of evidence for all outcomes included in the meta-analyses was moderate owing to unclear risk of selection bias across most studies, high or unclear risk of detection bias across over half of included studies, and high or unclear risk of attrition bias across most studies. The results should be interpreted cautiously.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe studies included in this review show evidence of improvements in protective behaviours and knowledge among children exposed to school-based programmes, regardless of the type of programme. The results might have differed had the true ICCs or cluster-adjusted results been available. There is evidence that children's knowledge does not deteriorate over time, although this requires further research with longer-term follow-up. Programme participation does not generate increased or decreased child anxiety or fear, however there is a need for ongoing monitoring of both positive and negative short- and long-term effects. The results show that programme participation may increase the odds of disclosure, however there is a need for more programme evaluations to routinely collect such data. Further investigation of the moderators of programme effects is required along with longitudinal or data linkage studies that can assess actual prevention of child sexual abuse.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review found evidence that school-based sexual abuse prevention programmes were effective in increasing participants' skills in protective behaviours and knowledge of sexual abuse prevention concepts (measured via questionnaires or vignettes). Knowledge gains (measured via questionnaires) were not significantly eroded one to six months after the intervention for either intervention or control groups. In terms of harm, there was no evidence that programmes increased or decreased children's anxiety or fear. No studies measured parental anxiety or fear. Children exposed to a child sexual abuse prevention programme had greater odds of disclosing their abuse than children who had not been exposed, however we were more uncertain about this effect when the analysis was adjusted to account for the grouping of participants in classes or schools. Studies have not yet adequately measured the long-term benefits of programmes in terms of reducing the incidence or prevalence (or both) of child sexual abuse in programme participants." } ]
query-laysum	22366	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEarly dietary intakes may influence the development of allergic disease. It is important to determine if dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) given as supplements or added to infant formula prevent the development of allergy.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of higher PUFA intake during infancy to prevent allergic disease.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 September 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 14 September 2015) and CINAHL (1982 to 14 September 2015). 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 controlled trials that compared the use of a PUFA with no PUFA in infants for the prevention of allergy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data from the included studies. We used fixed-effect analyses. The treatment effects were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nThe search found 17 studies that assessed the effect of higher versus lower intake of PUFAs on allergic outcomes in infants. Only nine studies enrolling 2704 infants reported allergy outcomes that could be used in meta-analyses. Of these, there were methodological concerns for eight.\nIn infants up to two years of age, meta-analyses found no difference in incidence of all allergy (1 study, 323 infants; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.26; risk difference (RD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.09; heterogeneity not applicable), asthma (3 studies, 1162 infants; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.35, I2 = 0%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05, I2 = 0%), dermatitis/eczema (7 studies, 1906 infants; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06, I2 = 0%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02, I2 = 0%) or food allergy (3 studies, 915 infants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.19, I2 = 63%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02, I2 = 74%). There was a reduction in allergic rhinitis (2 studies, 594 infants; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.96, I2 = 6%; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.00, I2 = 54%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 25, 95% CI 13 to ∞).\nIn children aged two to five years, meta-analysis found no difference in incidence of all allergic disease (2 studies, 154 infants; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.02, I2 = 43%; RD -0.16, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.00, I2 = 63%; NNTB 6, 95% CI 3 to ∞), asthma (1 study, 89 infants; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.02; RD -0.20, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.02; heterogeneity not applicable; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 50), dermatitis/eczema (2 studies, 154 infants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.24, I2 = 0%; RD -0.09 95% CI -0.22 to 0.04, I2 = 24%) or food allergy (1 study, 65 infants; RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.25 to 20.68; RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.16; heterogeneity not applicable).\nIn children aged two to five years, meta-analysis found no difference in prevalence of all allergic disease (2 studies, 633 infants; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19, I2 = 36%; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07, I2 = 0%), asthma (2 studies, 635 infants; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.53, I2 = 0%; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.09, I2 = 0%), dermatitis/eczema (2 studies, 635 infants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09, I2 = 0%; RD -0.04 95% CI -0.11 to 0.02, I2 = 0%), allergic rhinitis (2 studies, 635 infants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.25, I2 = 0%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.08, I2 = 0%) or food allergy (1 study, 119 infants; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.19; RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.00; heterogeneity not applicable; NNTB 10, 95% CI 5 to ∞).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence that PUFA supplementation in infancy has an effect on infant or childhood allergy, asthma, dermatitis/eczema or food allergy. However, the quality of evidence was very low. There was insufficient evidence to determine an effect on allergic rhinitis.\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": "PUFA supplementation in infancy did not affect the risk of infant (aged up to two years of age) or childhood (aged up to 10 years of age) allergy, asthma, dermatitis/eczema and food allergy. There was a reduction in the risk of allergic rhinitis during infancy, however, there was no effect on the risk of childhood allergic rhinitis. There is insufficient evidence to determine an effect on allergic rhinitis." } ]
query-laysum	22367	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInfantile colic has an effect on both infants and their parents, who become exhausted and concerned as they attempt to comfort their child. Common approaches have focused upon physical treatments to reduce symptoms, with inconclusive evidence as to their effectiveness. An alternative approach seeks to provide training, support and psychological interventions for parents. This approach is known as parent training programmes. Programmes can include soothing techniques, advice on feeding or normalisation material in any form. The teaching format can vary including face-to-face courses, online learning, printed materials, home visits and remote support and counselling. Here, we aim to collate the evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions and examine their effectiveness at reducing infantile colic symptoms and parental anxiety levels, and their safety.\nObjectives\n1. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of parent training programmes for managing colic in infants under four months of age.\n2. To identify the educational content and attributes of such published programmes.\nSearch methods\nIn June 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers. We also handsearched conference abstracts, inspected the references of included studies and contacted leaders in the field for more trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating the effectiveness of any form of parental training programmes, alone or in combination, versus another intervention(s) or control, on infantile colic.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias within the included studies. We used Review Manager 5 to analyse the data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nOur search found 6064 records from which we selected 20 for full-text review. From these, we identified seven studies with 1187 participants that met our inclusion criteria. All of the studies included infants under the age of four months suffering from infantile colic. Four studies were conducted in the USA, one in Canada, one in the Netherlands and one in Iran. Four studies stated their funding sources, which included national research institutes, foundations and nutritional companies. Five studies assessed parent training versus a control group that received reassurance or routine care; and of these, one study was three-armed and also examined the effectiveness of using a specialised baby seat. One study examined parent training programmes against a milk-exclusion diet and one study assessed a parent training programme versus the same parent training programme plus swaddling. The duration of the interventions varied, with the shortest being six days and the longest being three months.\nGenerally, most studies had low participant numbers and were at high risk of bias, prone to selection bias, performance bias, and the placebo effect.\nWe could not complete the planned qualitative analysis (objective 2) due to lack of data in study reports and no further information being supplied by authors on request. Instead, we completed a descriptive content analysis with the limited information available. The parent training interventions were found to focus on one or a combination of the following: soothing techniques for crying infants (six studies); general care advice, including sleep (four studies); feeding advice (two studies); stress reduction and empathic programme for parents (two studies); and positive play interaction advice (one study). One study taught 'kangaroo care', a specific form of skin-to-skin cuddling. The control groups consisted of reassurance (two studies), advice to rock the infant in the crib (one study), or no intervention (two studies).\nParent training versus control\nWe conducted a meta-analysis using data from three studies (157 infants) that assessed the primary outcome of 'crying time at completion of study period'. Parent training was more effective than control: mean difference (MD) −113.58 m/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) −144.19 m/d to −82.96 m/d; low-certainty evidence (downgraded due to imprecision and some concerns with risk of bias).\nParent training versus specialised baby seat\nOne study (38 participants) found no difference in mean crying time at completion between the parent training group and the specialised baby seat group, but did not report specific figures.\nParent training versus a milk-exclusion/soy milk formula\nOne study (20 participants) comparing parent training with a milk-exclusion/soy milk formula found crying time at completion of the study to be 2.03 hours versus 1.08 hours, respectively.\nParent training versus parent training plus swaddling\nOne study (398 participants) comparing parental training with the same intervention plus training on how to swaddle an infant did not report separate data for each group.\nNo adverse effects were reported, but these were not explicitly reported in any study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of parent training programmes for managing infantile colic. Despite a single meta-analysis showing that parent training may reduce crying times for infants, compared to control, the certainty of the evidence was low. Evidence for other comparisons was sparse. We were unable to identify comprehensively the educational content and attributes of the included programmes due to a lack of information in study reports. Further RCTs are needed: they should define interventions clearly to ensure replicability, address all appropriate outcome measures, and minimise risk of bias in order to assess definitively the role of parent training programmes in managing infantile colic.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Authors conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Although our analyses suggest that crying times may be reduced amongst infants whose parents attend parent training programmes, the certainty of the evidence is low. Further, better-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to answer questions on the effectiveness and safety of parent training programmes for managing infantile colic." } ]
query-laysum	22368	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInflammation may contribute to preterm birth and to morbidity of preterm infants. Preterm infants are at risk for alterations in the normal protective microbiome. Oral probiotics administered directly to preterm infants have been shown to decrease the risk for severe necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) as well as the risk of death, but there are safety concerns about administration of probiotics directly to preterm infants. Through decreasing maternal inflammation, probiotics may play a role in preventing preterm birth and/or decreasing the inflammatory milieu surrounding delivery of preterm infants, and may alter the microbiome of the preterm infant when given to mothers during pregnancy. Probiotics given to mothers after birth of preterm infants may effect infant bacterial colonization, which could potentially reduce the incidence of NEC.\nObjectives\n1. To compare the efficacy of maternal probiotic administration versus placebo or no intervention in mothers during pregnancy for the prevention of preterm birth and the prevention of morbidity and mortality of infants born preterm.\n2. To compare the efficacy of maternal probiotic administration versus placebo, no intervention, or neonatal probiotic administration in mothers of preterm infants after birth on the prevention of mortality and preterm infant morbidities such as NEC.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 21 March 2017), Embase (1980 to 21 March 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 21 March 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials in the review if they administered oral probiotics to pregnant mothers at risk for preterm birth, or to mothers of preterm infants after birth. Quasi-randomized trials were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. Studies enrolling pregnant women needed to administer probiotics at < 36 weeks' gestation until the trimester of birth. Probiotics considered were of the genera Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium or Saccharomyces.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and Cochrane Neonatal to determine the methodologic quality of studies, and for data collection and analysis.\nMain results\nWe included 12 eligible trials with a total of 1450 mothers and 1204 known infants. Eleven trials administered probiotics to mothers during pregnancy and one trial administered probiotics to mothers after birth of their preterm infants. No studies compared maternal probiotic administration directly with neonatal administration. Included prenatal trials were highly variable in the indication for the trial, the gestational age and duration of administration of probiotics, as well as the dose and formulation of the probiotics. The pregnant women included in these trials were overall at low risk for preterm birth. In a meta-analysis of trial data, oral probiotic administration to pregnant women did not reduce the incidence of preterm birth < 37 weeks (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 2.67; 4 studies, 518 mothers and 506 infants), < 34 weeks (typical risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 2 studies, 287 mothers and infants), the incidence of infant mortality (typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 2 studies, 309 mothers and 298 infants), or the gestational age at birth (mean difference (MD) 0.15, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.63; 2 studies, 209 mothers with 207 infants).\nOne trial studied administration of probiotics to mothers after preterm birth and included 49 mothers and 58 infants. There were no significant differences in the risk of any NEC (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.46; 1 study, 58 infants), surgery for NEC (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.58; 1 study, 58 infants), death (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.88; 1 study, 58 infants), and death or NEC (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.49; 1 study, 58 infants). There was an improvement in time to reach 50% enteral feeds in infants whose mothers received probiotics, but the estimate is imprecise (MD -9.60 days, 95% CI -19.04 to -0.16 days; 58 infants). No other improvement in any neonatal outcomes were reported. The estimates were imprecise and do not exclude the possibility of meaningful harms or benefits from maternal probiotic administration. There were no cases of culture-proven sepsis with the probiotic organism. The GRADE quality of evidence was judged to be low to very low due to inconsistency and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to conclude whether there is appreciable benefit or harm to neonates of either oral supplementation of probiotics administered to pregnant women at low risk for preterm birth or oral supplementation of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants after birth. Oral supplementation of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants after birth may decrease time to 50% enteral feeds, however, this estimate is extremely imprecise. More research is needed for post-natal administration of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants, as well as to pregnant mothers at high risk for preterm birth.\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": "Twelve eligible trials with a total of 1450 mothers and 1204 known infants were included from searches, up to date as of March 2017. Eleven trials gave probiotics to mothers during pregnancy and one trial gave probiotics to mothers after the birth of their preterm infants. No studies compared maternal probiotic administration directly versus neonatal administration.The studies of pregnant women focused on various aspects of the studies with different probiotics given at different times. The pregnant women included in these trials were overall at low risk for preterm birth. The one trial with mothers given probiotics after birth was to mothers of infants who weighed less than 1500 g at birth." } ]
query-laysum	22369	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nComprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multi-dimensional, multi-disciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic process conducted to determine the medical, mental, and functional problems of older people with frailty so that a co-ordinated and integrated plan for treatment and follow-up can be developed. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.\nObjectives\nWe sought to critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the effectiveness and resource use of CGA for older adults admitted to hospital, and to use these data to estimate its cost-effectiveness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers on 5 October 2016; we also checked reference lists and contacted study authors.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials that compared inpatient CGA (delivered on geriatric wards or by mobile teams) versus usual care on a general medical ward or on a ward for older people, usually admitted to hospital for acute care or for inpatient rehabilitation after an acute admission.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the most important outcomes. For this update, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from trialists, and we conducted a survey of trialists to obtain details of delivery of CGA. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), or standardised mean differences (SMDs), and combined data using fixed-effect meta-analysis. We estimated cost-effectiveness by comparing inpatient CGA versus hospital admission without CGA in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, cost per life year (LY) gained, and cost per life year living at home (LYLAH) gained.\nMain results\nWe included 29 trials recruiting 13,766 participants across nine, mostly high-income countries. CGA increases the likelihood that patients will be alive and in their own homes at 3 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.10; 16 trials, 6799 participants; high-certainty evidence), results in little or no difference in mortality at 3 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; 21 trials, 10,023 participants; high-certainty evidence), decreases the likelihood that patients will be admitted to a nursing home at 3 to 12 months follow-up (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; 14 trials, 6285 participants; high-certainty evidence) and results in little or no difference in dependence (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04; 14 trials, 6551 participants; high-certainty evidence). CGA may make little or no difference to cognitive function (SMD ranged from -0.22 to 0.35 (5 trials, 3534 participants; low-certainty evidence)). Mean length of stay ranged from 1.63 days to 40.7 days in the intervention group, and ranged from 1.8 days to 42.8 days in the comparison group. Healthcare costs per participant in the CGA group were on average GBP 234 (95% CI GBP -144 to GBP 605) higher than in the usual care group (17 trials, 5303 participants; low-certainty evidence). CGA may lead to a slight increase in QALYs of 0.012 (95% CI -0.024 to 0.048) at GBP 19,802 per QALY gained (3 trials; low-certainty evidence), a slight increase in LYs of 0.037 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.073), at GBP 6305 per LY gained (4 trials; low-certainty evidence), and a slight increase in LYLAH of 0.019 (95% CI -0.019 to 0.155) at GBP 12,568 per LYLAH gained (2 trials; low-certainty evidence). The probability that CGA would be cost-effective at a GBP 20,000 ceiling ratio for QALY, LY, and LYLAH was 0.50, 0.89, and 0.47, respectively (17 trials, 5303 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOlder patients are more likely to be alive and in their own homes at follow-up if they received CGA on admission to hospital. We are uncertain whether data show a difference in effect between wards and teams, as this analysis was underpowered. CGA may lead to a small increase in costs, and evidence for cost-effectiveness is of low-certainty due to imprecision and inconsistency among studies. Further research that reports cost estimates that are setting-specific across different sectors of care are required.\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": "Giving older people who are admitted to hospital access to specialist co-ordinated geriatric assessment (CGA) services on admission to hospital increases the chances that they will be alive in their own homes at follow-up." } ]
query-laysum	22370	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original review, published in Issue 1, 2011, of The Cochrane Library. Acute lower abdominal pain is common, and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal women, as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with symptoms of appendicitis, early pregnancy complications and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.\nSearch methods\nThe Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINAHL were searched (October 2013). The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched. No new studies were included in this updated version.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. Trials were included if they evaluated laparoscopy with open appendicectomy, or laparoscopy with a wait and see strategy. Study selection was carried out by two review authors independently.\nData collection and analysis\nData from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two review authors and the risk of bias assessed. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. A summary of findings table was prepared using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nA total of 12 studies including 1020 participants were incorporated into the review. These studies had low to moderate risk of bias, mainly because allocation concealment or methods of sequence generation were not adequately reported. In addition, it was not clear whether follow-up was similar for the treatment groups. The index test was incorporated as a reference standard in the laparoscopy group, and differential verification or partial verification bias may have occurred in most RCTs. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach.\nLaparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (seven RCTs, 561 participants; odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.50 to 6.71; I2 = 18%), but no evidence was found of reduced rates for any adverse events (eight RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I2 = 0%). A meta-analysis of seven studies found a significant difference favouring the laparoscopic procedure in the rate of removal of normal appendix (seven RCTs, 475 participants; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.24; I2 = 0%).\nLaparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. A significant difference favoured laparoscopy in terms of rate of specific diagnoses (four RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I2 = 79%), but no evidence suggested a difference in rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I2 = 0%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that laparoscopy in women with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis led to a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared with open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. No evidence showed an increase in adverse events when any of these strategies were used.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Cochrane authors reviewed available evidence on the use of laparoscopy to manage acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis in women of childbearing age. We found 12 studies." } ]
query-laysum	22371	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAmphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) refer to a group of synthetic stimulants including amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) and related substances. ATS are highly addictive and prolonged use may result in a series of mental and physical symptoms including anxiety, confusion, insomnia, mood disturbances, cognitive impairments, paranoia, hallucinations and delusion.\nCurrently there is no widely accepted treatment for ATS-use disorder. However, cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT) is the first-choice treatment. The effectiveness of CBT for other substance-use disorders (e.g. alcohol-, opioid- and cocaine-use disorders) has been well documented and as such this basic treatment approach has been applied to the ATS-use disorder.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural treatment for people with ATS-use disorder for reducing ATS use compared to other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12-step facilitation, no intervention or treatment as usual.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT for ATS-use disorders with other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12 step facilitation or no intervention. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and five other databases up to July 2018. In addition, we examined reference lists of eligible studies and other systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nEligibility criteria consisted of RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT versus other types of interventions with adult ATS users (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed by any explicit diagnostic system. Primary outcomes included abstinence rate and other indicators of drug-using behaviours.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nOnly two studies met the eligibility criteria. Both studies were at low risk of selection bias and reporting bias. In one study, almost half of participants in the intervention group dropped out and this study was at high risk of attrition bias. The studies compared a single session of brief CBT or a web-based CBT to a waiting-list control (total sample size across studies of 129). Results were mixed across the studies. For the single-session brief CBT study, two out of five measures of drug use produced significant results, percentage of abstinent days in 90 days (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.11) and dependence symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.59, 95% CI –1.16 to –0.02). Little confidence could be placed in the results from this study give the small sample size (25 participants per group) and corresponding large CIs around the observed effects. For the web-based CBT, there was no significant difference across different outcomes. Neither study reported adverse effects. The meta-analytic mean across these two trials for drug use was not significant (SMD –0.28, 95% CI –0.69 to 0.14). In summary, overall quality of evidence was low and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that CBT is effective, or ineffective, at treating ATS use.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is not enough evidence to establish the efficacy of CBT for ATS-use disorders because of a paucity of high-quality research in this area.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The aim of this Cochrane review was to find out whether cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT) is effective to treat people with amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS)-use disorders. Researchers in the Drugs and Alcohol Group of Cochrane collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found two studies." } ]
query-laysum	22372	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUndifferentiated acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are a large and heterogeneous group of infections not clearly restricted to one specific part of the upper respiratory tract, which last for up to seven days. They are more common in pre-school children in low-income countries and are responsible for 75% of the total amount of prescribed antibiotics in high-income countries. One possible rationale for prescribing antibiotics is the wish to prevent bacterial complications.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics in preventing bacterial complications in children aged two months to 59 months with undifferentiated ARIs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1950 to August week 1, 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to August 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotic prescriptions with placebo or no treatment in children aged two months to 59 months with an undifferentiated ARI for up to seven days.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe identified four trials involving 1314 children. Three trials investigated the use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid to prevent otitis and one investigated ampicillin to prevent pneumonia.\nThe use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid compared to placebo to prevent otitis showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.11, three trials, 414 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). Methods of random sequence generation and allocation concealment were not clearly stated in two trials. Performance, detection and reporting bias could not be ruled out in three trials.\nAmpicillin compared to supportive care (continuation of breastfeeding, clearing of the nose and paracetamol for fever control) to prevent pneumonia showed a RR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49, one trial, 889 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). The trial was non-blinded. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment methods were not clearly stated, so the possibility of reporting bias could not be ruled out.\nHarm outcomes could not be analysed as they were expressed only in percentages.\nWe found no studies assessing mastoiditis, quinsy, abscess, meningitis, hospital admission or death.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence for antibiotic use as a means of reducing the risk of otitis or pneumonia in children up to five years of age with undifferentiated ARIs. Further high-quality research is needed to provide more definitive evidence of the effectiveness of antibiotics in this population.\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": "Current evidence does not provide support for the use of antibiotics to prevent otitis media and pneumonia in children up to five years of age with common upper ARIs." } ]
query-laysum	22373	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm infants are born with low glycogen stores and require higher glucose intake to match fetal accretion rates. In spite of the myriad benefits of breast milk for preterm infants, it may not adequately meet the needs of these rapidly growing infants. Supplementing human milk with carbohydrates may help. However, there is a paucity of data on assessment of benefits or harms of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants. This is a 2020 update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether human milk supplemented with carbohydrate compared with unsupplemented human milk fed to preterm infants improves growth, body composition, and cardio-metabolic and neurodevelopmental outcomes without significant adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE via PubMed on 22 August 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nPublished and unpublished controlled trials were eligible if they used random or quasi-random methods to allocate preterm infants in hospital fed human milk to supplementation or no supplementation with additional carbohydrate.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality and the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. We planned to perform meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to use a fixed-effect model and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analyses. We contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nOne unblinded, quasi-randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing effects of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk in the form of a prebiotic in 75 preterm infants was eligible for inclusion in this review. We identified two publications of the same trial, which reported different methods regarding blinding and randomisation. Study authors confirmed that these publications pertain to the same trial, but they have not yet clarified which method is correct. Our analyses showed very low certainty evidence of an effect of carbohydrate supplementation on weight by 30 days of age age (MD 160.4 grams, 95% CI 12.4 to 308.4 grams), and no effect on risk of feeding intolerance (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.15) or necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.3). Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the prebiotic group than in the control group (median difference 9 days). No data were available for assessing effects of carbohydrate supplementation on long-term growth and neurodevelopment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether carbohydrate supplementation of human milk affects any outcomes in preterm infants. The only trial included in this review presented very low-quality evidence, and study authors provided uncertain information about study methods and analysis. The evidence may be limited in its applicability because researchers included a small sample of preterm infants from a single centre. Future trials could assess the safety and efficacy of different types and concentrations of carbohydrate supplementation for preterm infants fed human milk. However, we do not envisage that further trials of digestible carbohydrates will be conducted, as this is currently done as a component of multi-nutrient human milk fortification.\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 addition of extra carbohydrate to human milk fed to preterm infants compared with no additional carbohydrate improve growth, body fat, obesity, heart problems, high blood sugar, and brain development without causing significant side effects?" } ]
query-laysum	22374	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRisky consumption of alcohol is a global problem. More than 3.3 million deaths annually are associated with risky use of alcohol, and global alcohol consumption continues to increase. People who have high alcohol consumption often require planned and emergency surgical procedures.\nRisky drinking is associated with increased postoperative complications such as infections, cardiopulmonary complications, and bleeding episodes. Alcohol causes disorders of the liver, pancreas, and nervous system. Stopping consumption of alcohol can normalize these organ systems to some degree and may reduce the occurrence of complications after surgery.\nThis review was first published in 2012 and was updated in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions on rates of postoperative complications and alcohol consumption.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up until 21 September 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and two trials registers. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any identified relevant systematic reviews for further references to additional trials. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions on postoperative complications and alcohol consumption. We included participants with risky consumption of alcohol who were undergoing all types of elective or acute surgical procedures under general or regional anaesthesia or sedation, who were offered a perioperative alcohol cessation intervention or no intervention.\nWe defined 'risky drinking' as alcohol consumption equivalent to more than 3 alcoholic units (AU)/d or 21 AU/week (with 1 AU containing 12 grams of ethanol) with or without symptoms of alcohol abuse or dependency. This corresponds to the amount of alcohol associated with increased postoperative complication rates in most clinical studies.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used guidance provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We presented main outcomes as dichotomous variables in a meta-analysis. When data were available, we conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore the risk of bias. Primary outcome measures were postoperative complications and in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were successful quitting at the end of the programme, postoperative alcohol use, and length of hospital stay. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included in this updated review one new study (70 participants), resulting in a total of three RCTs (140 participants who drank 3 to 40 AU/d). All three studies were of moderate to good quality. All studies evaluated the effects of intensive alcohol cessation interventions, including pharmacological strategies for alcohol withdrawal symptoms, patient education, and relapse prophylaxis. We identified one ongoing study.\nOverall, 53 of the 122 participants from three studies who underwent surgery developed any type of postoperative complication that required treatment. Of 61 participants in the intervention groups, 20 had complications, compared with 33 of 61 participants in the control groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.96). Results show differences between the three clinical studies regarding outcome measurement and intensity of the interventions. However, all alcohol cessation programmes were intensive and included pharmacological therapy. The overall quality of evidence for this outcome is moderate.\nIn-hospital and 30-day postoperative mortality rates were low in the three studies. Researchers reported one death among 61 participants in the intervention groups, and three deaths among 61 participants in the control groups (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.96). The quality of evidence for this outcome is low.\nInvestigators describe more successful quitters at the end of the intervention programme than among controls. Forty-one out of 70 participants in the intervention groups successfully quit drinking compared with only five out of 70 participants in the control groups (RR 8.22, 95% CI 1.67 to 40.44). The quality of evidence for this outcome is moderate.\nAll three studies reported postoperative alcohol consumption (grams of alcohol/week) at the end of the programme as median and range values; therefore it was not possible to estimate the mean and the standard deviation (SD). We performed no meta-analysis. All three studies reported length of stay, and none of these studies described a significant difference in length of stay. Data were insufficient for review authors to perform a meta-analysis. No studies reported on the prevalence of participants without risky drinking in the longer term.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review assessed the efficacy of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions for postoperative complications and alcohol consumption. All three studies showed a significant reduction in the number of participants who quit drinking alcohol during the intervention period. Intensive alcohol cessation interventions offered for four to eight weeks to participants undergoing all types of surgical procedures to achieve complete alcohol cessation before surgery probably reduced the number of postoperative complications. Data were insufficient for review authors to assess their effects on postoperative mortality. No studies reported an effect on length of stay, and no studies addressed the prevalence of risky drinking in the longer term.\nIncluded studies were few and reported small sample sizes; therefore one should be careful about drawing firm conclusions based on these study results. All three studies were conducted in Denmark, and most participants were men. The included participants may represent a selective group, as they could have been more motivated and/or more interested in participating in clinical research or otherwise different, and effects may have been overestimated for both intervention and control groups in these studies. Trial results indicate that these studies are difficult to perform, that strong research competencies are necessary for future studies, and that further evaluation of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions in high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed. Once published and assessed, the one 'ongoing' study identified may alter the conclusions of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Risky consumption of alcohol is a global problem, and alcohol is an important threat to world health. More than 3.3 million deaths annually are associated with risky use of alcohol, and global alcohol consumption continues to increase. People who have a high level of alcohol consumption often require planned and emergency surgical procedures.\nRisky drinking affects surgical outcomes - even when the disease is not alcohol related. Typical surgical complications include infections, heart and breathing problems, and bleeding episodes. Alcohol causes disorders of the liver, pancreas, and nervous system. Stopping drinking of alcohol can normalize these organ systems to some degree and may reduce the occurrence of complications after surgery. Quitting drinking can result in mild to severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms and may lead to a change in lifestyle.\nThis review was first published in 2012 and was updated in 2018." } ]
query-laysum	22375	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSince 1879, the year of the first documented medical telephone consultation, the ability to consult by telephone has become an integral part of modern patient-centred healthcare systems. Nowadays, up to a quarter of all care consultations are conducted by telephone. Studies have quantified the impact of medical telephone consultation on clinicians' workload and detected the need for quality improvement. While doctors routinely receive training in communication and consultation skills, this does not necessarily include the specificities of telephone communication and consultation. Several studies assessed the short-term effect of interventions aimed at improving clinicians' telephone consultation skills, but there is no systematic review reporting patient-oriented outcomes or outcomes of interest to clinicians.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of training interventions for clinicians' telephone consultation skills and patient outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other electronic databases and two trial registers up to 19 May 2016, and we handsearched references, checked citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies and data.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating training interventions compared with any control intervention, including no intervention, for improving clinicians' telephone consultation skills with patients and their impact on patient outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies using standard Cochrane and EPOC guidance and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors where additional information was needed. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified one very small controlled before-after study performed in 1989: this study used a validated tool to assess the effects of a training intervention on paediatric residents' history-taking and case management skills. It reported no difference compared to no intervention, but authors did not report any quantitative analyses and could not supply additional data. We rated this study as being at high risk of bias. Based on GRADE, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low, and consequently it is uncertain whether this intervention improves clinicians' telephone skills.\nWe did not find any study assessing the effect of training interventions for improving clinicians' telephone communication skills on patient primary outcomes (health outcomes measured by validated tools or biomedical markers or patient behaviours, patient morbidity or mortality, patient satisfaction, urgency assessment accuracy or adverse events).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTelephone consultation skills are part of a wider set of remote consulting skills whose importance is growing as more and more medical care is delivered from a distance with the support of information technology. Nevertheless, no evidence specifically coming from telephone consultation studies is available, and the training of clinicians at the moment has to be guided by studies and models based on face-to-face communication, which do not consider the differences between these two communicative dimensions. There is an urgent need for more research assessing the effect of different training interventions on clinicians' telephone consultation skills and their effect on patient outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to May 2016." } ]
query-laysum	22376	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAdmission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the third update of the original review.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, two other databases, and two trials registers on 2 March 2016. We checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought unpublished studies by contacting providers and researchers who were known to be involved in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, requested individual patient data from trialists, and relied on published data when this was not available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 16 randomised controlled trials with a total of 1814 participants; three trials recruited participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, two trials recruited participants recovering from a stroke, six trials recruited participants with an acute medical condition who were mainly elderly, and the remaining trials recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We assessed the majority of the included studies as at low risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias, and unclear for selective reporting and performance bias. Admission avoidance hospital at home probably makes little or no difference on mortality at six months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.99; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%; 912 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), little or no difference on the likelihood of being transferred (or readmitted) to hospital (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; P = 0.84; I2 = 28%; 834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce the likelihood of living in residential care at six months' follow-up (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.57; P < 0.0001; I2 = 78%; 727 participants; low-certainty evidence). Satisfaction with healthcare received may be improved with admission avoidance hospital at home (646 participants, low-certainty evidence); few studies reported the effect on caregivers. When the costs of informal care were excluded, admission avoidance hospital at home may be less expensive than admission to an acute hospital ward (287 participants, low-certainty evidence); there was variation in the reduction of hospital length of stay, estimates ranged from a mean difference of -8.09 days (95% CI -14.34 to -1.85) in a trial recruiting older people with varied health problems, to a mean increase of 15.90 days (95% CI 8.10 to 23.70) in a study that recruited patients recovering from a stroke.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAdmission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of elderly patients requiring hospital admission. However, the evidence is limited by the small randomised controlled trials included in the review, which adds a degree of imprecision to the results for the main outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Admission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of elderly patients requiring hospital admission. We found 16 studies, of which six were identified for this update. Three studies recruited participants with chronic obstructive (lung) disease, two recruited participants recovering from a stroke, six recruited participants with a (sudden or short-term) medical condition who were mainly elderly, and the remaining studies recruited participants with a mix of conditions. The studies showed that when compared to in-hospital care, admission avoidance hospital at home services probably make little or no difference to patient health outcomes or to the likelihood of being taken to hospital, and may increase the chances of living at home at six months' follow-up. Patients who receive care at home may be more satisfied than those who are in hospital, but it is not known how this type of health care affects the caregivers who support them. With respect to costs, it is uncertain if hospital at home services reduce or increase length of stay or cost to the health service; when the costs for caregivers are taken into account any difference in cost may disappear." } ]
query-laysum	22377	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.\nObjectives\nTo summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population.\nTo assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population.\nTo cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.\nMethods\nIn July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias.\nPressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty.\n(1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration.\n(2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain.\n(3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence).\nPressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty.\n(1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence).\n(2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence).\n(3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking.\nMore high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Static air mattresses or overlays, alternating pressure air mattresses or overlays, and gel pads used on operating tables may be better than foam mattresses for preventing pressure ulcers.\nCompared with foam mattresses, alternating pressure air mattresses or overlays probably result in health benefits that outweigh their costs in preventing pressure ulcers.\nStatic air mattresses or overlays may be better than foam mattresses for ulcer healing, but may cost more.\nIt is unclear what the best treatment is for either preventing or treating pressure ulcers; what the effects of these treatment options are on people’s comfort and quality of life; and whether or not there are any unwanted effects." } ]
query-laysum	22378	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSubfertility is a condition found in up to 15% of couples of reproductive age. Gamete micromanipulation, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), is very useful for treating couples with compromised sperm parameters. An alternative method of sperm selection has been described; the spermatozoa are selected under high magnification (over 6000x) and used for ICSI. This technique, named intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI), has a theoretical potential to improve reproductive outcomes among couples undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART). However, our previous version of this Cochrane Review was unable to find evidence that supported this possible beneficial effect. This is an update of Teixeira 2013.\nObjectives\nTo identify, appraise, and summarise the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of IMSI compared to ICSI in couples undergoing ART.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in these electronic databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and in these trial registers: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also handsearched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews. We performed the last electronic search on 18 November 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe only considered RCTs that compared ICSI and IMSI; we did not include quasi-randomised trials. We considered studies that permitted the inclusion of the same participant more than once (cross-over or per cycle trials) only if data regarding the first treatment of each participant were available.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias and quality of the evidence; we solved disagreements by consulting a third review author. We corresponded with study investigators to resolve any queries, as required.\nMain results\nThe updated search retrieved 535 records; we included 13 parallel-designed RCTs comparing IMSI and ICSI (four studies were added since the previous version), comprising 2775 couples (IMSI = 1256; ICSI = 1519).\nWe are uncertain if IMSI improves live birth rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.39; 5 studies, 929 couples; I² = 1%), miscarriage rates per couple (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48; 10 studies, 2297 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence), and miscarriage rate per pregnancy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 10 studies, 783 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence). We are uncertain if IMSI improves clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; 13 studies, 2775 couples; I² = 47%, very-low quality evidence). None of the included studies reported congenital abnormalities. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be of very low-quality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to limitations of the included studies (risk of bias), inconsistency of results, and a strong indication of publication bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support or refute the clinical use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI). We are very uncertain of the chances of having a live birth and of the risk of having a miscarriage. We found very low-quality evidence that IMSI may increase chances of a clinical pregnancy, which means that we are still very uncertain about any real difference.\nWe did not find any trials reporting on the risk of congenital abnormalities. Well-designed and sufficiently powered trials are still required.\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": "Sperm micromanipulation, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), is very useful for treating couples in which the male partner has reduced sperm concentration, motility, or both. In the past decade, a different approach for sperm selection has been described, which analyses sperm under ultra-high powered magnification (6000x). Initial studies showed that intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI), using sperm selected under high magnification, was associated with higher pregnancy rates than those selected with conventional ICSI in couples with repeated implantation failures. However, the evidence from our previous Cochrane Review was uncertain of the real beneficial effects of this intervention." } ]
query-laysum	22379	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Although therapeutic ultrasound is not recommended in recent clinical guidelines, it is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic LBP.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP. A secondary objective was to determine the most effective dosage and intensity of therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP.\nSearch methods\nWe performed electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and two trials registers to 7 January 2020. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews and performed forward citation searching.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on therapeutic ultrasound for chronic non-specific LBP. We compared ultrasound (either alone or in combination with another treatment) with placebo or other interventions for chronic LBP.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. We performed a meta-analysis when sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed. We determined the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 10 RCTs involving a total of 1025 participants with chronic LBP. The included studies were carried out in secondary care settings in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Croatia, the UK, and the USA, and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to another treatment, for six to 18 treatment sessions. The risk of bias was unclear in most studies. Eight studies (80%) had unclear or high risk of selection bias; no studies blinded care providers to the intervention; and only five studies (50%) blinded participants. There was a risk of selective reporting in eight studies (80%), and no studies adequately assessed compliance with the intervention.\nThere was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations in design) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) −7.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) −17.99 to 3.75; n = 121, 3 RCTs; 0-to-100-point visual analogue scale (VAS)). There was also moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference in the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain in the short term (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.44; n = 225, 1 RCT). There was low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and limitations in design) that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on back-specific function compared with placebo in the short term (standardised mean difference −0.29, 95% CI −0.51 to −0.07 (MD −1.07, 95% CI −1.89 to −0.26; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire); n = 325; 4 RCTs), but this effect does not appear to be clinically important. There was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo on well-being (MD −2.71, 95% CI −9.85 to 4.44; n = 267, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)). Two studies (n = 486) reported on overall improvement and satisfaction between groups, and both reported little to no difference between groups (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). One study (n = 225) reported on adverse events and did not identify any adverse events related to the intervention (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). No study reported on disability for this comparison.\nWe do not know whether therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise results in better outcomes than exercise alone because the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low (downgraded for imprecision and serious limitations in design). The estimate effect for pain was in favour of the ultrasound plus exercise group (MD −21.1, 95% CI −27.6 to −14.5; n = 70, 2 RCTs; 0-to-100-point VAS) at short term. Regarding back-specific function (MD − 0.41, 95% CI −3.14 to 2.32; n = 79, 2 RCTs; Oswestry Disability Questionnaire) and well-being (MD −2.50, 95% CI −9.53 to 4.53; n = 79, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the SF-36), there was little to no difference between groups at short term. No studies reported on the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain, patient satisfaction, disability, or adverse events for this comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence from this systematic review is uncertain regarding the effect of therapeutic ultrasound on pain in individuals with chronic non-specific LBP. Whilst there is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound may have a small effect on improving low back function in the short term compared to placebo, the certainty of evidence is very low. The true effect is likely to be substantially different. There are few high-quality randomised trials, and the available trials were very small. The current evidence does not support the use of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic LBP.\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": "It is common for people to feel pain in their lower back. When the cause of pain is unknown, we say that the pain is ‘non-specific’. Pain that lasts for more than three months is considered to be 'chronic'.Chronic non-specific low back pain can be disabling. It can cause people to miss work. Often, people with chronic non-specific back pain seek medical care.Ultrasound therapy is the use of sound waves (vibrations) to treat medical problems. It is commonly used to treat low back pain. A healthcare provider rubs a hand-held machine against the skin on the lower back. The machine produces vibrations that go through the skin. The aim is to deliver heat and energy to body parts under the skin, to reduce pain and speed up recovery.This Cochrane Review aimed to find out whether ultrasound is effective for treating chronic non-specific low back pain, and whether it causes any unwanted effects. Specifically, we wanted to know if ultrasound affected the following outcomes: pain, people feeling restricted in their daily life by pain, satisfaction with the treatment, well-being, disability, and other unwanted effects.What did we look for?We looked for studies published up to January 2020 that:• were randomised controlled trials, medical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups. This type of study provides the most reliable evidence about whether a treatment makes a difference;• included people with chronic non-specific low back pain who were aged 18 years or older;• compared ultrasound (either alone or with another treatment) with a placebo (fake treatment) or other treatments for chronic non-specific low back pain.What did we find?We found 10 studies that included a total of 1025 people treated for chronic non-specific low back pain.Most people in the studies had mild to moderate back pain, which means they may have found daily activities painful. They were treated in outpatient hospital departments or clinics, where they typically had six to 18 sessions of ultrasound therapy. Study participants were then followed for a period of time after the treatment (usually a few days or weeks).Studies compared ultrasound to one or more of the following: placebo (five studies), no treatment (one study), electrical pulses (one study), manipulation of the spine (one study), osteopathy (one study), and laser therapy (one study). Three studies compared ultrasound with exercise to exercise alone. None of the studies was commercially funded.Key resultsThere is little to suggest that ultrasound is an effective treatment for people with non-specific chronic low back pain.Ultrasound compared with placeboWe do not know whether ultrasound reduces average pain intensity because this has been studied in too few people, in studies that gave varying answers and were poorly conducted. Ultrasound probably makes little or no difference to the number of people in whom pain is reduced by 30% or more in the short term (i.e. less than three months after the start of the study).Ultrasound probably makes little or no difference to people’s well-being. It may make little or no difference to how much people feel restricted by their back pain in daily life, or to how satisfied people are with their treatment.Ultrasound may have little or no impact on unwanted effects. We do not know whether ultrasound affects disability since no studies investigated this.Ultrasound with exercise compared with exercise aloneWe do not know whether ultrasound affects the outcomes of interest in this review because either no studies investigated them, or because the studies that did were imprecise or poorly conducted.Certainty of the evidenceBased on the studies we found, there was mostly low- to very low-certainty evidence that ultrasound makes little or no difference to pain and well-being compared to placebo. For all the other outcomes and comparisons, we are less confident in the results we reported. This is because studies were too imprecise or were poorly conducted." } ]
query-laysum	22380	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStaphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) can cause secondary infection in eczema, and may promote inflammation in eczema that does not look infected. There is no standard intervention to reduce S. aureus burden in eczema. It is unclear whether antimicrobial treatments help eczema or promote bacterial resistance. This is an update of a 2008 Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions to reduce S. aureus for treating eczema.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We searched five trials registers and three sets of conference proceedings. We checked references of trials and reviews for further relevant studies. We contacted pharmaceutical companies regarding ongoing and unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of products intended to reduce S. aureus on the skin in people diagnosed with atopic eczema by a medical practitioner. Eligible comparators were a similar treatment regimen without the anti-staphylococcal agent.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our key outcomes were participant- or assessor-rated global improvement in symptoms/signs, quality of life (QOL), severe adverse events requiring withdrawal, minor adverse events, and emergence of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms.\nMain results\nWe included 41 studies (1753 analysed participants) covering 10 treatment categories. Studies were conducted mainly in secondary care in Western Europe; North America; the Far East; and elsewhere. Twelve studies recruited children; four, adults; 19, both; and six, unclear. Fifty-nine per cent of the studies reported the mean age of participants (range: 1.1 to 34.6 years). Eczema severity ranged from mild to severe. Many studies did not report our primary outcomes. Treatment durations ranged from 10 minutes to 3 months; total study durations ranged from 15 weeks to 27 months. We considered 33 studies at high risk of bias in at least one domain.\nWe present results for three key comparisons. All time point measurements were taken from baseline. We classed outcomes as short-term when treatment duration was less than four weeks, and long-term when treatment was given for more than four weeks.\nFourteen studies evaluated topical steroid/antibiotic combinations compared to topical steroids alone (infective status: infected (two studies), not infected (four studies), unspecified (eight studies)). Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may lead to slightly greater global improvement in good or excellent signs/symptoms than topical steroid alone at 6 to 28 days follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.21; 224 participants; 3 studies, low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between groups for QOL in children, at 14 days follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.04; 42 participants; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). The subsequent results for this comparison were based on very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of their validity: severe adverse events were rare (follow-up: between 6 to 28 days): both groups reported flare of dermatitis, worsening of the condition, and folliculitis (325 participants; 4 studies). There were fewer minor adverse events (e.g. flare, stinging, itch, folliculitis) in the combination group at 14 days follow-up (218 participants; 2 studies). One study reported antibiotic resistance in children at three months follow-up, with similar results between the groups (65 participants; 1 study).\nFour studies evaluated oral antibiotics compared to placebo (infective status: infected eczema (two studies), uninfected (one study), one study’s participants had colonisation but no clinical infection). Oral antibiotics may make no difference in terms of good or excellent global improvement in infants and children at 14 to 28 days follow-up compared to placebo (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.18 to 3.50; 75 participants; 2 studies, low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between groups for QOL (in infants and children) at 14 days follow-up (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.32, 45 participants, 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). The subsequent results for this comparison were based on very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of their validity: adverse events requiring treatment withdrawal between 14 to 28 days follow-up were very rare, but included eczema worsening (both groups), loose stools (antibiotic group), and Henoch-Schönlein purpura (placebo group) (4 studies, 199 participants). Minor adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and stomach and joint pains, at 28 days follow-up were also rare and generally low in both groups (1 study, 68 infants and children). Antibiotic resistance at 14 days was reported as similar in both groups (2 studies, 98 infants and children).\nOf five studies evaluating bleach baths compared to placebo (water) or bath emollient (infective status: uninfected (two studies), unspecified (three studies)), one reported global improvement and showed that bleach baths may make no difference when compared with placebo at one month follow-up (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.63; 36 participants; low-quality evidence). One study showed there is probably little or no difference in QOL at 28 days follow-up when comparing bleach baths to placebo (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12) (80 infants and children; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain if the groups differ in the likelihood of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events at two months follow-up (only one dropout reported due to worsening itch (placebo group)) as the quality of evidence was very low (1 study, 42 participants). One study reported that five participants in each group experienced burning/stinging or dry skin at two months follow-up, so there may be no difference in minor adverse events between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.87, 36 participants, low-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence means we are also uncertain if antibiotic resistance at four weeks follow-up is different between groups (1 study, 80 participants ≤ 18 years).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence on the effects of anti-staphylococcal treatments for treating people with infected or uninfected eczema. Low-quality evidence, due to risk of bias, imprecise effect estimates and heterogeneity, made pooling of results difficult. Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may be associated with possible small improvements in good or excellent signs/symptoms compared with topical steroid alone. High-quality trials evaluating efficacy, QOL, and antibiotic resistance are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Included studies assessed a range of treatments, which they compared with placebos (an identical but inactive treatment), no treatment, other treatment, vehicle (inactive ingredient(s) which help deliver an active treatment), or textile without the anti-S.aureus component.\nStudies were conducted worldwide, and included males and females. Twelve studies recruited children; four, adults; 19, both; and six were unclear; where reported, the average participant age ranged from 1.1 to 34.6 years. Eczema severity varied from mild to severe. Treatment durations ranged from 10 minutes to 3 months; total study durations, from 15 weeks to 27 months." } ]
query-laysum	22381	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIntermediate hyperglycaemia (IH) is characterised by one or more measurements of elevated blood glucose concentrations, such as impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). These levels are higher than normal but below the diagnostic threshold for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The reduced threshold of 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) fasting plasma glucose (FPG) for defining IFG, introduced by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) in 2003, substantially increased the prevalence of IFG. Likewise, the lowering of the HbA1c threshold from 6.0% to 5.7% by the ADA in 2010 could potentially have significant medical, public health and socioeconomic impacts.\nObjectives\nTo assess the overall prognosis of people with IH for developing T2DM, regression from IH to normoglycaemia and the difference in T2DM incidence in people with IH versus people with normoglycaemia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, ClincialTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal up to December 2016 and updated the MEDLINE search in February 2018. We used several complementary search methods in addition to a Boolean search based on analytical text mining.\nSelection criteria\nWe included prospective cohort studies investigating the development of T2DM in people with IH. We used standard definitions of IH as described by the ADA or World Health Organization (WHO). We excluded intervention trials and studies on cohorts with additional comorbidities at baseline, studies with missing data on the transition from IH to T2DM, and studies where T2DM incidence was evaluated by documents or self-report only.\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author extracted study characteristics, and a second author checked the extracted data. We used a tailored version of the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for assessing risk of bias. We pooled incidence and incidence rate ratios (IRR) using a random-effects model to account for between-study heterogeneity. To meta-analyse incidence data, we used a method for pooling proportions. For hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) of IH versus normoglycaemia, reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI), we obtained standard errors from these CIs and performed random-effects meta-analyses using the generic inverse-variance method. We used multivariable HRs and the model with the greatest number of covariates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence with an adapted version of the GRADE framework.\nMain results\nWe included 103 prospective cohort studies. The studies mainly defined IH by IFG5.6 (FPG mmol/L 5.6 to 6.9 mmol/L or 100 mg/dL to 125 mg/dL), IFG6.1 (FPG 6.1 mmol/L to 6.9 mmol/L or 110 mg/dL to 125 mg/dL), IGT (plasma glucose 7.8 mmol/L to 11.1 mmol/L or 140 mg/dL to 199 mg/dL two hours after a 75 g glucose load on the oral glucose tolerance test, combined IFG and IGT (IFG/IGT), and elevated HbA1c (HbA1c5.7: HbA1c 5.7% to 6.4% or 39 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol; HbA1c6.0: HbA1c 6.0% to 6.4% or 42 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol). The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 24 years. Ninety-three studies evaluated the overall prognosis of people with IH measured by cumulative T2DM incidence, and 52 studies evaluated glycaemic status as a prognostic factor for T2DM by comparing a cohort with IH to a cohort with normoglycaemia. Participants were of Australian, European or North American origin in 41 studies; Latin American in 7; Asian or Middle Eastern in 50; and Islanders or American Indians in 5. Six studies included children and/or adolescents.\nCumulative incidence of T2DM associated with IFG5.6, IFG6.1, IGT and the combination of IFG/IGT increased with length of follow-up. Cumulative incidence was highest with IFG/IGT, followed by IGT, IFG6.1 and IFG5.6. Limited data showed a higher T2DM incidence associated with HbA1c6.0 compared to HbA1c5.7. We rated the evidence for overall prognosis as of moderate certainty because of imprecision (wide CIs in most studies). In the 47 studies reporting restitution of normoglycaemia, regression ranged from 33% to 59% within one to five years follow-up, and from 17% to 42% for 6 to 11 years of follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence).\nStudies evaluating the prognostic effect of IH versus normoglycaemia reported different effect measures (HRs, IRRs and ORs). Overall, the effect measures all indicated an elevated risk of T2DM at 1 to 24 years of follow-up. Taking into account the long-term follow-up of cohort studies, estimation of HRs for time-dependent events like T2DM incidence appeared most reliable. The pooled HR and the number of studies and participants for different IH definitions as compared to normoglycaemia were: IFG5.6: HR 4.32 (95% CI 2.61 to 7.12), 8 studies, 9017 participants; IFG6.1: HR 5.47 (95% CI 3.50 to 8.54), 9 studies, 2818 participants; IGT: HR 3.61 (95% CI 2.31 to 5.64), 5 studies, 4010 participants; IFG and IGT: HR 6.90 (95% CI 4.15 to 11.45), 5 studies, 1038 participants; HbA1c5.7: HR 5.55 (95% CI 2.77 to 11.12), 4 studies, 5223 participants; HbA1c6.0: HR 10.10 (95% CI 3.59 to 28.43), 6 studies, 4532 participants. In subgroup analyses, there was no clear pattern of differences between geographic regions. We downgraded the evidence for the prognostic effect of IH versus normoglycaemia to low-certainty evidence due to study limitations because many studies did not adequately adjust for confounders. Imprecision and inconsistency required further downgrading due to wide 95% CIs and wide 95% prediction intervals (sometimes ranging from negative to positive prognostic factor to outcome associations), respectively.\nThis evidence is up to date as of 26 February 2018.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall prognosis of people with IH worsened over time. T2DM cumulative incidence generally increased over the course of follow-up but varied with IH definition. Regression from IH to normoglycaemia decreased over time but was observed even after 11 years of follow-up. The risk of developing T2DM when comparing IH with normoglycaemia at baseline varied by IH definition. Taking into consideration the uncertainty of the available evidence, as well as the fluctuating stages of normoglycaemia, IH and T2DM, which may transition from one stage to another in both directions even after years of follow-up, practitioners should be careful about the potential implications of any active intervention for people 'diagnosed' with IH.\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": "Generally, the development of new type 2 diabetes (diabetes incidence) in people with prediabetes increased over time. However, many participants also reverted from prediabetes back to normal blood glucose levels. Compared to people with normoglycaemia, those with prediabetes (any definition) showed an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, but results showed wide differences and depended on how prediabetes was measured. There were no clear differences with regard to several regions in the world or different populations. Because people with prediabetes may develop diabetes but may also change back to normoglycaemia almost any time, doctors should be careful about treating prediabetes because we are not sure whether this will result in more benefit than harm, especially when done on a global scale affecting many people worldwide." } ]
query-laysum	22382	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNon-steroidal antiandrogens and castration are the main therapy options for advanced stages of prostate cancer. However, debate regarding the value of these treatment options continues.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone–releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for treating advanced stages of prostate cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group Specialized Register (PROSTATE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, three trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 23 December 2013, together with reference lists, and contacted selected experts in the field and manufacturers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for men in advanced stages of prostate cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author screened all titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Then, two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the study authors to request additional information. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and used the fixed-effect model for heterogeneity less than 50%; we used the random-effects model for substantial or considerable heterogeneity.\nMain results\nEleven studies involving 3060 randomly assigned participants were included in this review. The quality of evidence is hampered by risk of bias. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens decreased overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.48, six studies, 2712 participants) and increased clinical progression (one year: risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, five studies, 2067 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, six studies, 2373 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25, three studies, 1336 participants), as well as treatment failure (one year: RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38, four studies, 1539 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.52, five studies, 1845 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.24, two studies, 808 participants), compared with medical or surgical castration. The quality of evidence for overall survival, clinical progression and treatment failure was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Predefined subgroup analyses showed that use of non-steroidal antiandrogens, compared with castration, was less favourable for overall survival, clinical progression (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) and treatment failure (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) in men with metastatic disease. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens also increased the risk for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.94, eight studies, 1559 participants), including events such as breast pain (RR 22.97, 95% CI 14.79 to 35.67, eight studies, 2670 participants), gynaecomastia (RR 8.43, 95% CI 3.19 to 22.28, nine studies, 2774 participants) and asthenia (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.31, five studies, 2073 participants). The risk of other adverse events, such as hot flashes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.27, nine studies, 2774 participants), haemorrhage (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, two studies, 546 participants), nocturia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.69, one study, 480 participants), fatigue (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, one study, 51 participants), loss of sexual interest (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, one study, 51 participants) and urinary frequency (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47, one study, 480 participants) was decreased when non-steroidal antiandrogens were used. The quality of evidence for breast pain, gynaecomastia and hot flashes was rated as moderate according to GRADE. The effects of non-steroidal antiandrogens on cancer-specific survival and biochemical progression remained unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently available evidence suggests that use of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer is less effective in terms of overall survival, clinical progression, treatment failure and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Evidence quality was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Further research is likely to have an important impact on results for patients with advanced but non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy. However, we believe that research is likely not necessary on non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer. Only high-quality, randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up should be conducted. If further research is planned to investigate biochemical progression, studies with standardised follow-up schedules using measurements of prostate-specific antigen based on current guidelines should be conducted.\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": "Included studies were poorly conducted, and the quality of evidence was rated as moderate. This means that further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the accuracy of results." } ]
query-laysum	22383	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFamilial Mediterranean fever (FMF), a hereditary auto-inflammatory disease, mainly affects ethnic groups living in the Mediterranean region. Early studies reported colchicine may potentially prevent FMF attacks. For people who are colchicine-resistant or intolerant, drugs such as anakinra, rilonacept, canakinumab, etanercept, infliximab or adalimumab might be beneficial. This is an update of the review last published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for reducing inflammation in people with FMF.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and four Chinese databases on in August 2021. We searched clinical trials registries and references listed in relevant reports.\nThe last search was 17 August 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people with FMF, comparing active interventions (including colchicine, anakinra, rilonacept, canakinumab, etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, thalidomide, tocilizumab, interferon-α and ImmunoGuard (herbal dietary supplement)) with placebo or no treatment, or comparing active drugs to each other.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology. We assessed certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 10 RCTs with 312 participants (aged three to 53 years), including five parallel and five cross-over designed studies. Six studies used oral colchicine, one used oral ImmunoGuard, and the remaining three used rilonacept, anakinra or canakinumab as a subcutaneous injection. The duration of each study arm ranged from one to eight months.\nThere were inadequacies in the design of the four older colchicine studies and the two studies comparing a single to a divided dose of colchicine. However, the four studies of ImmunoGuard, rilonacept, anakinra and canakinumab were generally well-designed.\nWe aimed to report on the number of participants experiencing an attack, the timing of attacks, the prevention of amyloid A amyloidosis, adverse drug reactions and the response of a number of biochemical markers from the acute phase of an attack; but no study reported on the prevention of amyloid A amyloidosis.\nColchicine (oral) versus placebo\nAfter three months, colchicine 0.6 mg three times daily may reduce the number of people experiencing attacks (risk ratio (RR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.95; 1 study, 10 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (20 participants) of colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily showed there may be no difference in the number of participants experiencing attacks at two months (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence).\nThere may be no differences in the duration of attacks (narrative summary; very low-certainty evidence), or in the number of days between attacks: (narrative summary; very low-certainty evidence).\nRegarding adverse drug reactions, one study reported loose stools and frequent bowel movements and a second reported diarrhea (narrative summary; both very low-certainty evidence).\nThere were no data on acute-phase response.\nRilonacept versus placebo\nThere is probably no difference in the number of people experiencing attacks at three months (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.26; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere may be no differences in the duration of attacks (narrative summary; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of days between attacks (narrative summary; low-certainty evidence).\nRegarding adverse drug reactions, the rilonacept study reported there may be no differences in gastrointestinal symptoms, hypertension, headache, respiratory tract infections, injection site reactions and herpes, compared to placebo (narrative summary; low-certainty evidence).\nThe study narratively reported there may be no differences in acute-phase response indicators after three months (low-certainty evidence).\nImmunoGuard versus placebo\nThe ImmunoGuard study observed there are probably no differences in adverse effects (moderate-certainty evidence) or in acute-phase response indicators after one month of treatment (moderate-certainty evidence).\nNo data were reported for the number of people experiencing an attack, duration of attacks or days between attacks.\nAnakinra versus placebo\nA study of anakinra given to 25 colchicine-resistant participants found there is probably no difference in the number of participants experiencing an attack at four months (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere were no data for duration of attacks or days between attacks.\nThere are probably no differences between anakinra and placebo with regards to injection site reaction, headache, presyncope, dyspnea and itching (narrative summary; moderate-certainty evidence).\nFor acute-phase response, anakinra probably reduced C-reactive protein (CRP) after four months (narrative summary; moderate-certainty evidence).\nCanakinumab versus placebo\nCanakinumab probably reduces the number of participants experiencing an attack at 16 weeks (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.65; 1 study, 63 colchicine-resistant participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere were no data for the duration of attacks or days between attacks.\nThe included study reported the number of serious adverse events per 100 patient-years was probably 42.7 with canakinumab versus 97.4 with placebo among people with colchicine-resistant FMF (moderate-certainty evidence).\nFor acute-phase response, canakinumab probably caused a higher proportion of participants to have a CRP level of 10 mg/L or less compared to placebo (68% with canakinumab versus 6% with placebo; 1 study, 63 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nColchicine single dose versus divided dose\nThere is probably no difference in the duration of attacks at three months (MD −0.04 hours, 95% CI −10.91 to 10.83) or six months (MD 2.80 hours, 95% CI −5.39 to 10.99; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere were no data for the number of participants experiencing an attack or days between attacks.\nThere is probably no difference in adverse events (including anorexia, nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting and elevated liver enzymes) between groups (narrative summary; moderate-certainty evidence).\nFor acute-phase response, there may be no evidence of a difference between groups (narrative summary; low- to moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere were limited RCTs assessing interventions for people with FMF. Based on the evidence, three times daily colchicine may reduce the number of people experiencing attacks, colchicine single dose and divided dose may not be different for children with FMF, canakinumab probably reduces the number of people experiencing attacks, and anakinra or canakinumab probably reduce CRP in colchicine-resistant participants; however, only a few RCTs contributed data for analysis. Further RCTs examining active interventions, not only colchicine, are necessary before a comprehensive conclusion regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for reducing inflammation in FMF can be drawn.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We aimed to report on the number of participants experiencing an attack, the timing of attacks, prevention of amyloid A amyloidosis (which is a reaction to a chronic inflammatory disease or infection leading to a build-up of an abnormal protein called amyloid in organs and tissues throughout the body stopping them working properly), and any side effects of treatment and the levels of a number of markers of inflammation during an attack. Not all studies reported these outcomes. Given the differences in treatments and study design, it was not possible to combine any of the results that we did obtain from these studies.\nOne study (15 participants) with oral colchicine 0.6 mg three times a day and another study (63 participants) with subcutaneous (under the skin) canakinumab 150 mg every four weeks for 16 weeks may help to reduce the numbers of people with attacks of FMF. However, oral colchicine 0.5 mg twice a day (20 participants), rilonacept (14 participants) or anakinra (25 participants) did not reduce the numbers of people with attacks. ImmunoGuard (24 participants) did not reduce levels of the markers of inflammation in the blood which are raised during the attack phase of FMF; these include the rate of fall of red blood cells when placed in a test tube, the white blood cell count and the presence of C-reactive protein (a protein that is produced in the liver). Anakinra and canakinumab reduced C-reactive protein levels. Colchicine taken once daily and two or three times daily might not result in different outcomes including the timing of attacks, sider effects of the medicine and acute-phase response indicators." } ]
query-laysum	22384	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps) is common and a major cause of pain in women. Combined oral contraceptives (OCPs) are often used in the management of primary dysmenorrhoea, but there is a need for reporting the benefits and harms. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as painful menstrual cramps without pelvic pathology.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of combined oral contraceptive pills for the management of primary dysmenorrhoea.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date 28 March 2023.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all combined OCPs with other combined OCPs, placebo, or management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Participants had to have primary dysmenorrhoea, diagnosed by ruling out pelvic pathology through pelvic examination or ultrasound.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain score after treatment, improvement in pain, and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 21 RCTs (3723 women). Eleven RCTs compared combined OCP with placebo, eight compared different dosages of combined OCP, one compared two OCP regimens with placebo, and one compared OCP with NSAIDs.\nOCP versus placebo or no treatment\nOCPs reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than placebo. Six studies reported treatment effects on different scales; the result can be interpreted as a moderate reduction in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.74 to −0.41; I² = 28%; 6 RCTs, 588 women; high-quality evidence). Six studies also reported pain improvement as a dichotomous outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.10; I² = 69%; 6 RCTs, 717 women; low-quality evidence). The data suggest that in women with a 28% chance of improvement in pain with placebo or no treatment, the improvement in women using combined OCP will be between 37% and 60%.\nCompared to placebo or no treatment, OCPs probably increase the risk of any adverse events (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.43; I² = 79%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; moderate-quality evidence), and may also increase the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 6.43; I² = 22%; 4 RCTs, 512 women; low-quality evidence).\nWomen who received OCPs had an increased risk of irregular bleeding compared to women who received placebo or no treatment (RR 2.63, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.28; I² = 29%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; high-quality evidence). In women with a risk of irregular bleeding of 18% if using placebo or no treatment, the risk would be between 39% and 60% if using combined OCP. OCPs probably increase the risk of headaches (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04; I² = 44%; 5 RCTs, 656 women; moderate-quality evidence), and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.30; I² = 39%; 8 RCTs, 948 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of OCP on weight gain (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.45; 1 RCT, 76 women; low-quality evidence). OCPs may slightly reduce requirements for additional medication (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 163 women; low-quality evidence), and absence from work (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 148 women; low-quality evidence).\nOne OCP versus another OCP\nContinuous use of OCPs (no pause or inactive tablets after the usual 21 days of hormone pills) may reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than the standard regimen (SMD −0.73, 95% CI −1.13 to 0.34; 2 RCTs, 106 women; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in pain improvement between ethinylestradiol 20 μg and ethinylestradiol 30 μg OCPs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.74; 1 RCT, 326 women; moderate-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between third- and fourth-generation and first- and second-generation OCPs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 178 women; moderate-quality evidence). The standard regimen of OCPs may slightly increase the risk of any adverse events over the continuous regimen (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22; I² = 76%; 3 RCTs, 602 women; low-quality evidence), and probably increases the risk of irregular bleeding (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.69; 2 RCTs, 379 women; moderate-quality evidence). Due to lack of studies, it is uncertain if there is a difference between continuous and standard regimen OCPs in serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; 1 RCT, 212 women), headaches (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 435 women), or nausea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.30; I² = 23%; 2 RCTs, 435 women) (all very low-quality evidence).\nWe are uncertain if one type of OCP reduces absence from work more than the other (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.99; 1 RCT, 445 women; very low-quality evidence).\nOCPs versus NSAIDs\nThere were insufficient data to determine whether OCPs were more effective than NSAIDs for pain (mean difference −0.30, 95% CI −5.43 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 91 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report on adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOCPs are effective for treating dysmenorrhoea, but they cause irregular bleeding, and probably headache and nausea. Long-term effects were not covered in this review. Continuous use of OCPs was probably more effective than the standard regimen but safety should be ensured with long-term data. Due to lack of data, we are uncertain whether NSAIDs are better than OCPs for treating dysmenorrhoea.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"OCPs compared to placebo\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "OCPs reduce pain by 0.7 to 1.3 points more on the total dysmenorrhoea scale (range 0 to 6) than placebo in women with menstrual cramps (6 studies with 588 women; high-quality evidence). The six studies that measured improvement as a yes/no category showed that OCPs may reduce pain. Women with a 28% chance of improving on placebo may have a 37% to 60% chance of improving on OCPs (low-quality evidence).\nOCPs increase the risk of side effects (59% in placebo group compared to 71% to 86% in OCP group; moderate-quality evidence), and may lead to more serious side effects (1.1% in placebo group compared to 0.5% to 6.8% in OCP group; low-quality evidence).\nIrregular bleeding increases among women using OCPs. Women with an 18% risk of irregular bleeding on placebo have a 39% to 60% risk of irregular bleeding on OCPs (high-quality evidence). Moderate-quality evidence found that OCPs probably increase the risk of headaches (17% in placebo group compared to 19% to 35% in OCP group), and nausea (feeling sick; 10% in placebo group compared to 11% to 22% in OCP group).\nWe are uncertain of the effect of OCP on weight gain.\nLow-quality evidence found that OCPs may slightly reduce the need for extra medicine (38% in placebo group compared to 15% to 37% in OCP group), and absence from work (36% in placebo group compared to 11% to 35% in OCP group)." } ]
query-laysum	22385	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNecrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are severe and rapidly spreading soft tissue infections of the subcutaneous tissue, fascia, or muscle, which are mostly caused by bacteria. Associated rates of mortality and morbidity are high, with the former estimated at around 23%, and disability, sequelae, and limb loss occurring in 15% of patients. Standard management includes intravenous empiric antimicrobial therapy, early surgical debridement of necrotic tissues, intensive care support, and adjuvant therapies such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of medical and surgical treatments for necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) in adults in hospital settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to April 2018: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers, pharmaceutical company trial results databases, and the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency websites. We checked the reference lists of included studies and reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nRCTs conducted in hospital settings, that evaluated any medical or surgical treatment for adults with NSTI were eligible for inclusion. Eligible medical treatments included 1) comparisons between different antimicrobials or with placebo; 2) adjuvant therapies such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IGIV) therapy compared with placebo; no treatment; or other adjuvant therapies. Eligible surgical treatments included surgical debridement compared with amputation, immediate versus delayed intervention, or comparisons of number of interventions.\nRCTs of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy for NSTI were ineligible because HBO is the focus of another Cochrane Review.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were 1) mortality within 30 days, and 2) proportion of participants who experience a serious adverse event. Secondary outcomes were 1) survival time, and 2) assessment of long-term morbidity. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included three trials randomising 197 participants (62% men) who had a mean age of 55 years. One trial compared two antibiotic treatments, and two trials compared adjuvant therapies with placebo. In all trials, participants concomitantly received standard interventions, such as intravenous empiric antimicrobial therapy, surgical debridement of necrotic tissues, intensive care support, and adjuvant therapies. All trials were at risk of attrition bias and one trial was not blinded.\nMoxifloxacin versus amoxicillin-clavulanate\nOne trial included 54 participants who had a NSTI; it compared a third-generation quinolone, moxifloxacin, at a dose of 400 mg given once daily, against a penicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, at a dose of 3 g given three times daily for at least three days, followed by 1.5 g three times daily. Duration of treatment varied from 7 to 21 days. We are uncertain of the effects of these treatments on mortality within 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 23.07) and serious adverse events at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.31) because the quality of the evidence is very low.\nAB103 versus placebo\nOne trial of 43 randomised participants compared two doses, 0.5 mg/kg and 0.25 mg/kg, of an adjuvant drug, a CD28 antagonist receptor (AB103), with placebo. Treatment was given via infusion pump for 10 minutes before, after, or during surgery within six hours after the diagnosis of NSTI. We are uncertain of the effects of AB103 on mortality rate within 30 days (RR of 0.34, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.16) and serious adverse events measured at 28 days (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.52 to 4.27) because the quality of the evidence is very low.\nIntravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) versus placebo\nOne trial of 100 randomised participants assessed IVIG as an adjuvant drug, given at a dose of 25 g/day, compared with placebo, given for three consecutive days. There may be no clear difference between IVIG and placebo in terms of mortality within 30 days (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.23) (low-certainty evidence), nor serious adverse events experienced in the intensive care unit (ICU) (RR 0.73 CI 95% 0.32 to 1.65) (low-certainty evidence).\nSerious adverse events were only described in one RCT (the IVIG versus placebo trial) and included acute kidney injury, allergic reactions, aseptic meningitis syndrome, haemolytic anaemia, thrombi, and transmissible agents.\nOnly one trial reported assessment of long-term morbidity, but the outcome was not defined in the way we prespecified in our protocol. The trial used the Short Form Health Survey (SF36). Data on survival time were provided upon request for the trials comparing amoxicillin-clavulanate versus moxifloxacin and IVIG versus placebo. However, even with data provided, it was not possible to perform survival analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very little evidence on the effects of medical and surgical treatments for NSTI. We cannot draw conclusions regarding the relative effects of any of the interventions on 30-day mortality or serious adverse events due to the very low quality of the evidence.\nThe quality of the evidence is limited by the very small number of trials, the small sample sizes, and the risks of bias in the included trials. It is important for future trials to clearly define their inclusion criteria, which will help with the applicability of future trial results to a real-life population.\nManagement of NSTI participants (critically-ill participants) is complex, involving multiple interventions; thus, observational studies and prospective registries might be a better foundation for future research, which should assess empiric antimicrobial therapy, as well as surgical debridement, along with the placebo-controlled comparison of adjuvant therapy. Key outcomes to assess include mortality (in the acute phase of the condition) and long-term functional outcomes, e.g. quality of life (in the chronic phase).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included people with NSTI. These types of infections are rare, but can become life-threatening if left untreated, or result in amputation. NSTIs need emergency treatment, usually with antibiotics and surgical removal of the infected tissue.\nWe searched for studies that assessed treatments for diagnosed NSTI in hospitalised adults. This included:\n- surgical treatments: surgical removal of damaged tissue compared with amputation, immediate versus delayed treatment, or comparison of a number of treatments;\n- antimicrobial medicines - which kill bacteria and fungi - compared with placebo (i.e. an identical but inactive treatment), or each other;\n- medicines given as add-on therapies in addition to the primary treatment (adjuvant therapies) compared with placebo, no treatment, or other adjuvant therapies.\nOur main outcomes of interest were death within 30 days, and any serious treatment side effects." } ]
query-laysum	22386	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBaby-led breastfeeding is recommended as best practice in determining the frequency and duration of a breastfeed. An alternative approach is described as scheduled, where breastfeeding is timed and restricted in frequency and duration. It is necessary to review the evidence that supports current recommendations, so that women are provided with high-quality evidence to inform their feeding decisions.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of baby-led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding, for healthy newborns.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 February 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 23 February 2016), EThOS, Index to Theses and ProQuest database and World Health Organization's 1998 evidence to support the 'Ten Steps' to successful breastfeeding (10 May 2016).\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised and quasi-randomised trials with randomisation at both the individual and cluster level. Studies presented in abstract form would have been eligible for inclusion if sufficient data were available. Studies using a cross-over design would not have been eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed for inclusion all potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. We would have resolved any disagreement through discussion or, if required, consulted a third review author, but this was not necessary.\nMain results\nNo studies were identified that were eligible for inclusion in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review demonstrates that there is no evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of baby-led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding, for healthy newborns. It is recommended that no changes are made to current practice guidelines without undertaking robust research, to include many patterns of breastfeeding and not limited to baby-led and scheduled breastfeeding. Future exploratory research is needed on baby-led breastfeeding that takes the mother's perspective into consideration.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for evidence on 23 February 2016 and identified no new studies for inclusion in the update of this review." } ]
query-laysum	22387	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPre-cancerous lesions of cervix (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)) are usually treated with excisional or ablative procedures. In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) cervical screening guidelines suggest that over 80% of treatments should be performed in an outpatient setting (colposcopy clinics). Furthermore, these guidelines suggest that analgesia should always be given prior to laser or excisional treatments. Currently various pain relief strategies are employed that may reduce pain during these procedures.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether the administration of pain relief (analgesia) reduces pain during colposcopy treatment and in the postoperative period.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to March week 3, 2016) and Embase (1980 to week 12, 2016) for studies of any design relating to analgesia for colposcopic management. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared all types of pain relief before, during or after outpatient treatment to the cervix, in women with CIN undergoing loop excision, laser ablation, laser excision or cryosurgery in an outpatient colposcopy clinic setting.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We entered data into Review Manager 5 and double checked it for accuracy. Where possible, we expressed results as mean pain score and standard error of the mean with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and synthesised data in a meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe included 19 RCTs (1720 women) of varying methodological quality in the review. These trials compared a variety of interventions aimed at reducing pain in women who underwent treatment for CIN, including cervical injection with lignocaine alone, lignocaine with adrenaline, buffered lignocaine with adrenaline, prilocaine with felypressin, oral analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), inhalation analgesia (gas mixture of isoflurane and desflurane), lignocaine spray, cocaine spray, local application of benzocaine gel, lignocaine-prilocaine cream (EMLA cream) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).\nMost comparisons were restricted to single trial analyses and were under-powered to detect differences in pain scores between treatments that may or may not have been present. There was no difference in pain relief between women who received local anaesthetic infiltration (lignocaine 2%; administered as a paracervical or direct cervical injection) and a saline placebo (mean difference (MD) -13.74; 95% CI -34.32 to 6.83; 2 trials; 130 women; low quality evidence). However, when local anaesthetic was combined with a vasoconstrictor agent (one trial used lignocaine plus adrenaline while the second trial used prilocaine plus felypressin), there was less pain (on visual analogue scale (VAS)) compared with no treatment (MD -23.73; 95% CI -37.53 to -9.93; 2 trials; 95 women; low quality evidence). Comparing two preparations of local anaesthetic combined with vasoconstrictor, prilocaine plus felypressin did not differ from lignocaine plus adrenaline for its effect on pain control (MD -0.05; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.16; 1 trial; 200 women). Although the mean (± standard deviation (SD)) observed blood loss score was less with lignocaine plus adrenaline (1.33 ± 1.05) compared with prilocaine plus felypressin (1.74 ± 0.98), the difference was not clinically as the overall scores in both groups were low (MD 0.41; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69; 1 trial; 200 women). Inhalation of gas mixture (isoflurane and desflurane) in addition to standard cervical injection with prilocaine plus felypressin resulted in less pain during the LLETZ (loop excision of the transformation zone) procedure (MD -7.20; 95% CI -12.45 to -1.95; 1 trial; 389 women). Lignocaine plus ornipressin resulted in less measured blood loss (MD -8.75 ml; 95% CI -10.43 to -7.07; 1 trial; 100 women) and a shorter duration of treatment (MD -7.72 minutes; 95% CI -8.49 to -6.95; 1 trial; 100 women) than cervical infiltration with lignocaine alone. Buffered solution (sodium bicarbonate buffer mixed with lignocaine plus adrenaline) was not superior to non-buffered solution of lignocaine plus adrenaline in relieving pain during the procedure (MD -8.00; 95% CI -17.57 to 1.57; 1 trial; 52 women).\nOne meta-analysis found no difference in pain using VAS between women who received oral analgesic and women who received placebo (MD -3.51; 95% CI -10.03 to 3.01; 2 trials; 129 women; low quality evidence).\nCocaine spray was associated with less pain (MD -28.00; 95% CI -37.86 to -18.14; 1 trial; 50 women) and blood loss (MD 0.04; 95% CI 0 to 0.70; 1 trial; 50 women) than placebo.\nNone of the trials reported serious adverse events and majority of trials were at moderate or high risk of bias (13 trials).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on two small trials, there was no difference in pain relief in women receiving oral analgesics compared with placebo or no treatment (MD -3.51; 95% CI -10.03 to 3.01; 129 women). We consider this evidence to be of a low to moderate quality. In routine clinical practice, intracervical injection of local anaesthetic with a vasoconstrictor (lignocaine plus adrenaline or prilocaine plus felypressin) appears to be the optimum analgesia for treatment. However, further high quality, adequately powered trials should be undertaken in order to provide the data necessary to estimate the efficacy of oral analgesics, the optimal route of administration and dose of local anaesthetics.\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": "Treatment for CIN is usually undertaken in an outpatient colposcopy clinic to remove the pre-cancerous cells from the cervix (lower part of the womb). It commonly involves lifting the cells off the cervix with electrically heated wire (diathermy) or laser, or destroying the abnormal cells with freezing methods (cryotherapy). This is potentially a painful procedure." } ]
query-laysum	22388	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIt has been reported that ozone therapy might be helpful in treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus (DM).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of ozone therapy on the healing of foot ulcers in people with DM.\nSearch methods\nIn March 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and The Chinese Clinical Registry. There were no restrictions based on language, date or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ozone therapy with sham ozone therapy or any other interventions for foot ulcers in people with DM, irrespective of publication date or language.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently screened all retrieved citations, selected relevant citations and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. The methodological quality of included studies and the evidence level of outcomes were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach respectively. Data were expressed using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Review Manager (RevMan) software was used to analyse the data.\nMain results\nThree studies (212 participants) were included in this review. The overall risk of bias was high for two trials and unclear for one.\nOne trial (101 participants) compared ozone treatment with antibiotics for foot ulcers in people with DM. The study had a follow-up period of 20 days. This study showed that ozone treatment was associated with a greater reduction in ulcer area from baseline to the end of the study than treatment with antibiotics (MD -20.54 cm2, 95% CI -20.61 to -20.47), and a shorter duration of hospitalisation (MD -8.00 days, 95% CI -14.17 to -1.83), but did not appear to affect the number of ulcers healed over 20 days (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40). No side effects were observed in either group.\nThe other two trials (111 participants) compared ozone treatment plus usual care with usual care for foot ulcers in people with DM. The meta-analysis results did not show evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes of reduction of ulcer area (MD -2.11 cm2, 95% CI -5.29 to 1.07), the number of ulcers healed (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.17), adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 10.79), or amputation rate (RR 2.73, 95%CI 0.12, 64.42).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence was three small RCTs with unclear methodology, so we are unable to draw any firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ozone therapy for foot ulcers in people with DM.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Findings of this review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors searched the medical literature up to March 3 2015, and identified three relevant clinical trials (212 participants) that investigated ozone therapy for the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. The available evidence was of low quality.\nOne trial, with 101 participants, compared ozone treatment with antibiotics and followed up for 20 days. The results of this study showed that the reduction in ulcer size was greater, and also the length of hospital stay was shorter, in those receiving ozone treatment, but there was no apparent benefit in terms of the number of foot ulcers healed. No adverse effects (side effects or harms) were observed with either treatment.\nThe other two trials (111 participants) compared ozone treatment plus usual care with usual care. The results of these two studies showed that there were no apparent differences between the groups for reduction in ulcer size,the number of foot ulcers healed, or occurrence of adverse events and amputation rates.\nQuality of life was not reported by either trial." } ]
query-laysum	22389	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCerivastatin was the most potent statin until it was withdrawn from the market due to a number of fatalities due to rhabdomyolysis, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of cerivastatin on blood lipids is not known.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nTo quantify the effects of various doses of cerivastatin on the surrogate markers: LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in children and adults with and without cardiovascular disease.\nThe aim of this review is to examine the pharmacology of cerivastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of cerivastatin on surrogate markers.\nSecondary objectives\nTo quantify the effect of various doses of cerivastatin compared to placebo on withdrawals due to adverse effects. To compare the relative potency of cerivastatin with respect to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin for LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for RCTs up to March 2019: CENTRAL (2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov.We also searched the European Patent Office, FDA.gov, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs and controlled before-and-after studies evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of cerivastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without cardiovascular disease.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for trials to be included and extracted data. We entered data from RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data respectively. We collected information on withdrawals due to adverse effects from the RCTs. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.\nMain results\nFifty trials (19 RCTs and 31 before-and-after studies) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of cerivastatin in 12,877 participants who had their LDL cholesterol measured. The participants were of any age with and without cardiovascular disease and the trials studied cerivastatin effects within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Cerivastatin 0.025 mg/day to 0.8 mg/day caused LDL cholesterol decreases of 11.0% to 40.8%, total cholesterol decreases of 8.0% to 28.8% and triglyceride decreases of 9.0% to 21.4%. We judged the certainty of evidence for these effects to be high. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol and triglycerides.\nWhen compared to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol; 233-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 18-fold more potent than atorvastatin and six-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol; and 125-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 11-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 13-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of cerivastatin on HDL cholesterol, but overall cerivastatin increased HDL cholesterol by 5%. There was a high risk of bias for the outcome withdrawals due to adverse effects, but a low risk of bias for the lipid measurements. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were not different between cerivastatin and placebo in 11 of 19 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.74).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride lowering effect of cerivastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Cerivastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin in reducing LDL cholesterol, and 233-fold greater potency than fluvastatin, 18-fold greater potency than atorvastatin and six-fold greater potency than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with cerivastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 42% of the RCTs.\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": "There is a high level of trust around the results for total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and very low to moderate for triglycerides. We have a low level of trust in the evidence around drop outs because many (8 out of 19 trials) did not report drop outs due to adverse effects." } ]
query-laysum	22390	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOpen-angle glaucoma (OAG) is an important cause of blindness worldwide. Laser trabeculoplasty, a treatment modality, still does not have a clear position in the treatment sequence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of laser trabeculoplasty for treating OAG and ocular hypertension (OHT) when compared to medication, glaucoma surgery or no intervention. We also wished to compare the effectiveness of different laser trabeculoplasty technologies for treating OAG and OHT.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 28 October 2021. We also contacted researchers in the field.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laser trabeculoplasty with no intervention, with medical treatment, or with surgery in people with OAG or OHT. We also included trials comparing different types of laser trabeculoplasty technologies.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two authors screened search results and extracted data independently. We considered the following outcomes at 24 months: failure to control intraocular pressure (IOP), failure to stabilise visual field progression, failure to stabilise optic neuropathy progression, adverse effects, quality of life, and costs. We graded the 'certainty' of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 40 studies (5613 eyes of 4028 people) in this review. The majority of the studies were conducted in Europe and in the USA. Most of the studies were at risk of performance and/or detection bias as they were unmasked. None of the studies were judged as having low risk of bias for all domains. We did not identify any studies of laser trabeculoplasty alone versus no intervention.\nLaser trabeculoplasty versus medication\nFourteen studies compared laser trabeculoplasty with medication in either people with primary OAG (7 studies) or primary or secondary OAG (7 studies); five of the 14 studies also included participants with OHT. Six studies used argon laser trabeculoplasty and eight studies used selective laser trabeculoplasty. There was considerable clinical and methodological diversity in these studies leading to statistical heterogeneity in results for the primary outcome \"failure to control IOP\" at 24 months. Risk ratios (RRs) ranged from 0.43 in favour of laser trabeculoplasty to 1.87 in favour of medication (5 studies, I2 = 89%). Studies of argon laser compared with medication were more likely to show a beneficial effect compared with studies of selective laser (test for interaction P = 0.0001) but the argon laser studies were older and the medication comparator group in those studies may have been less effective. We considered this to be low-certainty evidence because the trials were at risk of bias (they were not masked) and there was unexplained heterogeneity. There was evidence from two studies (624 eyes) that argon laser treatment was associated with less failure to stabilise visual field progression compared with medication (7% versus 11%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.16) at 24 months and one further large recent study of selective laser also reported a reduced risk of failure at 48 months (17% versus 26%) RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.81, 1178 eyes). We judged this outcome as moderate-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias. There was only very low-certainty evidence on optic neuropathy progression. Adverse effects were more commonly seen in the laser trabeculoplasty group including peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) associated with argon laser (32% versus 26%, RR 11.74, 95% CI 5.94 to 23.22; 624 eyes; 2 RCTs; low-certainty evidence); 5% of participants treated with laser in three studies of selective laser group had early IOP spikes (moderate-certainty evidence). One UK-based study provided moderate-certainty evidence that laser trabeculoplasty was more cost-effective.\nLaser trabeculoplasty versus trabeculectomy\nThree studies compared laser trabeculoplasty with trabeculectomy. All three studies enrolled participants with OAG (primary or secondary) and used argon laser. People receiving laser trabeculoplasty may have a higher risk of uncontrolled IOP at 24 months compared with people receiving trabeculectomy (16% versus 8%, RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.11; 901 eyes; 2 RCTs). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias (trials were not masked) and there was inconsistency between the two trials (I2 = 68%). There was limited evidence on visual field progression suggesting a higher risk of failure with laser trabeculoplasty. There was no information on optic neuropathy progression, quality of life or costs. PAS formation and IOP spikes were not reported but in one study trabeculectomy was associated with an increased risk of cataract (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.16) (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLaser trabeculoplasty may work better than topical medication in slowing down the progression of open-angle glaucoma (rate of visual field loss) and may be similar to modern eye drops in controlling eye pressure at a lower cost. It is not associated with serious unwanted effects, particularly for the newer types of trabeculoplasty, such as selective laser trabeculoplasty.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is open-angle glaucoma treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The aim of treatment for glaucoma is to reduce the pressure in the eye to protect the optic nerve from more damage. Reducing the pressure in the eye can be done by eye drops, laser treatment, or surgery. Laser trabeculoplasty involves opening up the blocked drainage channels in the eye." } ]
query-laysum	22391	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMedications used to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have significantly improved patient outcomes and delayed time to surgery. However, some of these therapies are recognized to increase the general risk of infection and have an unclear impact on postoperative infection risk.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of IBD medications on postoperative infection risk within 30 days of surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane IBD Groups Specialized Register (29 October 2019), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2019), EMBASE (January 1985 to October 2019), the Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception up to October 2019 and reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies comparing patients treated with an IBD medication preoperatively or within 30 days postoperatively to patients who were not taking that medication. Manuscripts and abstracts were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted data. The primary outcome was postoperative infection within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included incisional infections and wound dehiscence, intra-abdominal infectious complications and extra-abdominal infections. Three authors assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We contacted authors for additional information when data were missing. For the primary and secondary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using the generic inverse variance method. When applicable, we analyzed adjusted and unadjusted data separately. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.\nMain results\nSixty-eight non-randomized studies were included. Twenty-four studies had low risk of bias while the remaining had very high risk. Based on pooling of adjusted data, overall infectious complications were increased in patients who received anti-TNF agents (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.13; very low certainty evidence) and corticosteroids (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.38 to 2.09; low certainty evidence). Use of 5-ASA (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.14; very low certainty evidence), immunomodulators (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76; low certainty evidence) and anti-integrin agents (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36; low certainty evidence) had no impact on overall infectious complications. No difference in the odds of wound-related complications was seen in patients using corticosteroids, 5-ASA, immunomodulators, anti-TNF or anti-integrin agents when compared to controls. Both corticosteroids and anti-TNF agents increased odds of intra-abdominal infection (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.84; very low certainty evidence and OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.82; very low certainty evidence, respectively) whereas no impact was observed with 5-ASA, immunomodulators or anti-integrin agents. The rate of extra-abdominal infections was not affected by corticosteroids, immunomodulators, anti-TNF or anti-integrin agents.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence regarding corticosteroids, 5ASA, immunomodulators, anti-TNF mediations and anti-integrin medications was low or very low in certainty. Thus, the impact of these medications on postoperative infectious complications is uncertain and no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding their safety in the perioperative period. Decisions regarding preoperative IBD medications should be tailored to each patient’s unique circumstances. Future studies should focus on controlling for potential confounding factors to generate higher quality evidence.\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": "Analyses of this large set of data revealed that infection risk around the time of surgery varied depending on which type of IBD medication the patients were on. Patients being treated with corticosteroids or anti-TNF agents seemed to have more infections after surgery, while those on 5-ASA, immunomodulators or anti-integrin agents did not seem to have more infections after surgery. These findings should be taken with caution as our review included studies which were of limited quality, and therefore we were not able to draw any firm conclusions.\nThese findings could help doctors choose which medications to treat IBD patients with before surgery. Decisions should be tailored to each patient's unique health needs. In addition, this study suggests the need to carefully monitor for infections after surgery in patients who are on certain types of IBD medications." } ]
query-laysum	22392	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke is the second most common cause of death in the world and in China it has now become the main cause of death. It is also a main cause of adult disability and dependency. Acupuncture for stroke has been used in China for hundreds of years and is increasingly practiced in some Western countries. This is an update of the Cochrane review originally published in 2006 .\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of acupuncture therapy in people with subacute and chronic stroke. We intended to test the following hypotheses: 1) acupuncture can reduce the risk of death or dependency in people with subacute and chronic stroke at the end of treatment and at follow-up; 2) acupuncture can improve neurological deficit and quality of life after treatment and at the end of follow-up; 3) acupuncture can reduce the number of people requiring institutional care; and 4) acupuncture is not associated with any intolerable adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2015, Ovid), EMBASE (1980 to July 2015, Ovid), CINAHL (1982 to July 2015, EBSCO), and AMED (1985 to July 2015, Ovid). We also searched the following four Chinese medical databases: China Biological Medicine Database (July 2015); Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (July 2015); China National Infrastructure (July 2015), and Wan Fang database (July 2015).\nSelection criteria\nTruly randomised unconfounded clinical trials among people with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, in the subacute or chronic stage, comparing acupuncture involving needling with placebo acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or no acupuncture.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed quality, extracted and cross-checked the data.\nMain results\nWe included 31 trials with a total of 2257 participants in the subacute or chronic stages of stroke. The methodological quality of most of the included trials was not high. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was low or very low based on the assessment by the system of Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).\nTwo trials compared real acupuncture plus baseline treatment with sham acupuncture plus baseline treatment. There was no evidence of differences in the changes of motor function and quality of life between real acupuncture and sham acupuncture for people with stroke in the convalescent stage.\nTwenty-nine trials compared acupuncture plus baseline treatment versus baseline treatment alone. Compared with no acupuncture, for people with stroke in the convalescent phase, acupuncture had beneficial effects on the improvement of dependency (activity of daily living) measured by Barthel Index (nine trials, 616 participants; mean difference (MD) 9.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.34 to 14.05; GRADE very low), global neurological deficiency (seven trials, 543 participants; odds ratio (OR) 3.89, 95% CI 1.78 to 8.49; GRADE low), and specific neurological impairments including motor function measured by Fugl-Meyer Assessment (four trials, 245 participants; MD 6.16, 95% CI 4.20 to 8.11; GRADE low), cognitive function measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (five trials, 278 participants; MD 2.54, 95% CI 0.03 to 5.05; GRADE very low), depression measured by the Hamilton Depression Scale (six trials, 552 participants; MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.28 to -1.87; GRADE very low), swallowing function measured by drinking test (two trials, 200 participants; MD -1.11, 95% CI -2.08 to -0.14; GRADE very low), and pain measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (two trials, 118 participants; MD -2.88, 95% CI -3.68 to -2.09; GRADE low). Sickness caused by acupuncture and intolerance of pain at acupoints were reported in a few participants with stroke in the acupuncture groups. No data on death, the proportion of people requiring institutional care or requiring extensive family support, and all-cause mortality were available in all included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFrom the available evidence, acupuncture may have beneficial effects on improving dependency, global neurological deficiency, and some specific neurological impairments for people with stroke in the convalescent stage, with no obvious serious adverse events. However, most included trials were of inadequate quality and size. There is, therefore, inadequate evidence to draw any conclusions about its routine use. Rigorously designed, randomised, multi-centre, large sample trials of acupuncture for stroke are needed to further assess its effects.\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": "Acupuncture is a treatment based on ancient Chinese medicine in which fine needles or pressure is applied at certain sites in the body for therapeutic purposes. We wanted to know whether acupuncture is effective in improving the recovery of daily activities, movement, and quality of life in people who had experienced a stroke more than one month previously." } ]
query-laysum	22393	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHysteroscopy done in an outpatient setting is the 'gold standard' method for evaluating the uterine cavity. Media used to distend the uterine cavity include gas as carbon dioxide and liquid as saline that can be used at room temperature or warmed to body temperature. Both media offer advantages as well as disadvantages.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of gas (carbon dioxide) and liquid (normal saline) used for uterine distension during outpatient hysteroscopy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO on 28 April 2021. We checked references of relevant trials and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. CINAHL records and ongoing trials from the trial registries were included in the CENTRAL search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saline with carbon dioxide, as well as RCTs comparing saline at different temperatures, for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy done for any indication.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary review outcomes were patient tolerability and adverse events or complications related to the distending medium. Secondary outcomes were quality of the hysteroscopic view and duration of the procedure.\nMain results\nWe included 12 RCTs (1946 women). The quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate: the main limitations were risk of bias due to absence of blinding due to the nature of the procedure, imprecision, and inconsistency.\nSaline versus carbon dioxide\nAnalysis ruled out a clinically relevant difference in pain scores during the procedure between saline and carbon dioxide, but the quality of evidence was low (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.02; 9 RCTs, N = 1705; I² = 86%). This translates to differences of 0.39 cm (lower) and 0.05 cm (higher) on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Evidence was insufficient to show differences between groups in the proportion of procedures abandoned due to intense pain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.42; 1 RCT, N = 189; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether saline decreases the need for analgesia compared to carbon dioxide (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.99; 1 RCT, N = 189; very low-quality evidence).\nSaline compared to carbon dioxide is probably associated with fewer vasovagal reaction events (Peto OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; 6 RCTs, N = 1076; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer shoulder-tip pain events (Peto OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 4 RCTs, N = 623; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that if 10% of women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy experience a vasovagal reaction event with the use of carbon dioxide, this rate would be between 3% and 9% with the use of saline. Similarly, if the rate of shoulder-tip pain with carbon dioxide is 9%, it would be between 1% and 5% with saline. We are uncertain whether saline is similar to carbon dioxide in terms of endometrial bleeding (Peto OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.75; 2 RCTs, N = 349; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Infection was not reported by any study in this comparison.\nSaline may result in fewer procedures with an unsatisfactory hysteroscopic view than carbon dioxide (Peto OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.82; 5 RCTs, N = 1082; I² = 67%; low-quality evidence). The duration of the procedure was shorter with saline in three of the four studies that reported this outcome, and duration was similar in both arms in the fourth study.\nWarm saline versus room temperature saline\nUse of warm saline for uterine distension during office hysteroscopy may reduce pain scores when compared with room temperature saline (mean difference (MD) -1.14, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.73; 3 RCTs, N = 241; I² = 77%; low-quality evidence). Evidence is insufficient to show differences between groups in either the proportion of procedures abandoned due to intense pain (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.87; 1 RCT, N = 77; very low-quality evidence) or the need for analgesia (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.32; 1 RCT, N = 100; very low-quality evidence).\nAnalysis ruled out a clinically relevant difference in duration of the procedure between warm and room temperature saline, but the quality of evidence is low (MD 13.17 seconds, 95% CI -12.96 to 39.29; 2 RCTs, N = 141; I² = 21%). No cases of infection were reported in either group (1 RCT, N = 100). No other adverse events and no information on quality of the hysteroscopic view were reported by any study in this comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence was insufficient to show differences between different distension media used for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy in terms of patient tolerability, operator satisfaction, or duration of the procedure. However, saline was superior to carbon dioxide in producing fewer adverse events (shoulder-tip pain and vasovagal reaction).\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 womb is a hollow organ. A hysteroscope is an apparatus that is introduced inside the womb to see inside the cavity. If one is to see, the cavity needs to be filled with a clear substance (distension medium). This substance can be liquid (saline solution) or gas (carbon dioxide). Warming liquid to body temperature was suggested to improve patient tolerability. Each substance has benefits and side effects, which we have compared here." } ]
query-laysum	22394	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients with medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms are common in primary care. Previous reviews have reported benefit from specialised interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy and consultation letters, but there is a need for treatment models which can be applied within the primary care setting. Primary care studies of enhanced care, which includes techniques of reattribution or cognitive behavioural therapy, or both, have shown changes in healthcare professionals' attitudes and behaviour. However, studies of patient outcome have shown variable results and the value of enhanced care on patient outcome remains unclear.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of enhanced care interventions for adults with functional somatic symptoms in primary care. The intervention should be delivered by professionals providing first contact care and be compared to treatment as usual. The review focused on patient outcomes only.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) (all years to August 2012), together with Ovid searches (to September 2012) on MEDLINE (1950 - ), EMBASE (1980 - ) and PsycINFO (1806 - ). Earlier searches of the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), CINAHL, PSYNDEX, SIGLE, and LILACS were conducted in April 2010, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in October 2009. No language restrictions were applied. Electronic searches were supplemented by handsearches of relevant conference proceedings (2004 to 2012), reference lists (2011) and contact with authors of included studies and experts in the field (2011).\nSelection criteria\nWe limited our literature search to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), primary care, and adults with functional somatic symptoms. Subsequently we selected studies including all of the following: 1) a trial arm with treatment as usual; 2) an intervention using a structured treatment model which draws on explanations for symptoms in broad bio-psycho-social terms or encourages patients to develop additional strategies for dealing with their physical symptoms, or both; 3) delivery of the intervention by primary care professionals providing first contact care; and 4) assessment of patient outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened identified study abstracts. Disagreements about trial selections were resolved by a third review author. Data from selected publications were independently extracted and risk of bias assessed by two of three authors, avoiding investigators reviewing their own studies. We contacted authors from included studies to obtain missing information. We used continuous outcomes converted to standardised mean differences (SMDs) and based analyses on changes from baseline to follow-up, adjusted for clustering.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies from the literature search, but only six provided sufficient data for analyses. Included studies were European, cluster RCTs with adult participants seeing their usual doctor (in total 233 general practitioners and 1787 participants). Methodological quality was only moderate as studies had no blinding of healthcare professionals and several studies had a risk of recruitment and attrition bias. Studies were heterogeneous with regard to selection of patient populations and intensity of interventions. Outcomes relating to physical or general health (physical symptoms, quality of life) showed substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2 > 70%) and post hoc analysis suggested that benefit was confined to more intensive interventions; thus we did not calculate a pooled effect. Outcomes relating to mental health showed less heterogeneity and we conducted meta-analyses, which found non-significant overall effect sizes with SMDs for changes at 6 to 24 months follow-up: mental health (3 studies) SMD -0.04 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.10), illness worry (3 studies) SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22), depression (4 studies) SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.20) and anxiety (2 studies) SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.25). Effects on sick leave could not be estimated. Three studies of patient satisfaction with care all showed positive but non-significant effects, and measures were too heterogeneous to allow meta-analysis. Results on healthcare utilisation were inconclusive. We analysed study discontinuation and found that both short term and long term discontinuation occurred more often in patients allocated to the intervention group, RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.46) at 12 to 24 months.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence does not answer the question whether enhanced care delivered by front line primary care professionals has an effect or not on the outcome of patients with functional somatic symptoms. Enhanced care may have an effect when delivered per protocol to well-defined groups of patients with functional disorders, but this needs further investigation. Attention should be paid to difficulties including limited consultation time, lack of skills, the need for a degree of diagnostic openness, and patient resistance towards psychosomatic attributions. There is some indication from this and other reviews that more intensive interventions are more successful in changing patient outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does the evidence tell us?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review found that the relevant six studies varied in significant ways:\nhow severe the patients’ symptoms were;\nthe form and intensity of the enhanced care offered.\nThese differences made the studies difficult to compare. Many people left the studies before the outcomes could be measured.\nGiven these problems with comparing existing research, it is only possible to say:\nenhanced care may help people with functional somatic symptoms;\nmore intensive enhanced care may be more effective than very brief interventions." } ]
query-laysum	22395	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPolicy makers, health staff and communities recognise that health services in lower- and middle-income countries need to improve people's access to HIV treatment and retention to treatment programmes. One strategy is to move antiretroviral delivery from hospitals to more peripheral health facilities or even beyond health facilities. This could increase the number of people with access to care, improve health outcomes, and enhance retention in treatment programmes. On the other hand, providing care at less sophisticated levels in the health service or at community-level may decrease quality of care and result in worse health outcomes. To address these uncertainties, we summarised the research studies examining the risks and benefits of decentralising antiretroviral therapy service delivery.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of various models that decentralised HIV treatment and care to more basic levels in the health system for initiating and maintaining antiretroviral therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a comprehensive search to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress) from 1 January 1996 to 31 March 2013, and contacted relevant organisations and researchers. The search terms included 'decentralisation', 'down referral', 'delivery of health care', and 'health services accessibility'.\nSelection criteria\nOur inclusion criteria were controlled trials (randomised and non-randomised), controlled-before and after studies, and cohorts (prospective and retrospective) in which HIV-infected people were either initiated on antiretroviral therapy or maintained on therapy in a decentralised setting in lower- and middle-income countries. We define decentralisation as providing treatment at a more basic level in the health system to the comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors applied the inclusion criteria and extracted data independently. We designed a framework to describe different decentralisation strategies, and then grouped studies against these strategies. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Because loss to follow up in HIV programmes is known to include some deaths, we used attrition as our primary outcome, defined as death plus loss to follow-up. We assessed evidence quality with GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, all but one were from Africa, comprising two cluster randomised trials and 14 cohort studies. Antiretroviral therapy started at a hospital and maintained at a health centre (partial decentralisation) probably reduces attrition (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.71, 4 studies, 39 090 patients, moderate quality evidence). There may be fewer patients lost to care with this model (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.69, low quality evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether there is a difference in attrition for antiretroviral therapy started and maintained at a health centre (full decentralisation) compared to a hospital at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.02; four studies, 56 360 patients, very low quality evidence), but there are probably fewer patients lost to care with this model (RR 0.3, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54, moderate quality evidence).\nWhen antiretroviral maintenance therapy is delivered at home by trained volunteers, there is probably no difference in attrition at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.46, two trials, 1453 patients, moderate quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDecentralisation of HIV care aims to improve patient access and retention in care. Most data were from good quality cohort studies but confounding between site of treatment and outcomes cannot be excluded. Nevertheless, this review found that attrition appears to be lower in partial decentralisation models of treatment, where antiretrovirals were started at hospital and continued in the health centre; with antiretroviral drugs started and continued at health centres, no difference in attrition was detected, but there were fewer patients lost to care. For antiretroviral therapy provided at home by trained volunteers, no difference in outcomes were detected when compared to facility-based care.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies up to March 2013. We found 16 studies, including two high quality randomised controlled trials and 14 studies collecting data from HIV care programmes. All but one study was conducted in Africa. The study participants included both adults and children who were followed-up for up to two years.\nWe describe three types of care:\n- Partial decentralisation: starting antiretroviral therapy at the hospital, then moving to a health centre to continue treatment\n- Full decentralisation: starting and continuing treatment at a health centre\n- Providing antiretroviral therapy in the community: antiretroviral therapy is started at a health centre or hospital and thereafter provided in the community" } ]
query-laysum	22396	[ { "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: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "LZV (single dose) and RZV (two doses) are probably effective in preventing shingles disease for at least three years. For both vaccines, the certainty of evidence was moderate in terms of efficacy and safety for at least three years." } ]
query-laysum	22397	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in October 2013 on 'Sumatriptan plus naproxen for acute migraine attacks in adults'.\nMigraine is a common disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. It affects two to three times more women than men, and is most common in the age range 30 to 50 years. Effective abortive treatments include the triptan and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory classes of drugs. These drugs have different mechanisms of action and combining them may provide better relief. Sumatriptan plus naproxen is now available in combination form for the acute treatment of migraine.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan plus naproxen, administered together as separate tablets or taken as a fixed-dose combination tablet, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.\nSearch methods\nFor this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via The Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO) to 28 October 2015, MEDLINE (via Ovid) from 1946 to 28 October 2015, and EMBASE (via Ovid) from 1974 to 28 October 2015, and two online databases (www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov). We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, using sumatriptan plus naproxen to treat a migraine headache episode.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.\nMain results\nFor this update we identified one new study (43 participants), but it did not contribute any data for analysis. The review included 13 studies using sumatriptan 85 mg or 50 mg plus naproxen 500 mg to treat attacks of mild, moderate, or severe pain intensity. Twelve studies contributed data for analyses: 3663 participants received combination treatment, 3682 placebo, 964 sumatriptan, and 982 naproxen. We judged only one small study to be at high risk of bias for any of the criteria evaluated; it did not contribute to any analyses.\nOverall, the combination was better than placebo for the primary outcomes of pain-free and headache relief at two hours. The NNT for pain-free at two hours was 3.1 (95% confidence interval 2.9 to 3.5) when the baseline pain was mild (50% response with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 18% with placebo), and 4.9 (4.3 to 5.7) when baseline pain was moderate or severe (28% with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 8% with placebo) (high quality evidence). Using 50 mg of sumatriptan, rather than 85 mg, in the combination did not significantly change the result. Treating early, when pain was still mild, was significantly better than treating once pain was moderate or severe for pain-free responses at two hours and during the 24 hours post dose. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal; they were more common with the combination than with placebo (moderate quality evidence).\nWhere the data allowed direct comparison, combination treatment was superior to either monotherapy, but adverse events were less frequent with naproxen than with sumatriptan (moderate quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe conclusions of this review were not changed. Combination treatment was effective in the acute treatment of migraine headaches. The effect was greater than for the same dose of either sumatriptan or naproxen alone, but additional benefits over sumatriptan alone were not large. More participants achieved good relief when medication was taken early in the attack, when pain was still mild. Adverse events were more common with the combination and sumatriptan alone than with placebo or naproxen alone.\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": "On 28 October 2015, we looked for clinical trials using sumatriptan plus naproxen to treat migraine headache in adults. People were given either a combination of sumatriptan and naproxen, sumatriptan only, naproxen only, or a placebo (dummy) treatment. They did not know which treatment they were taking, and nor did the health professionals looking after them." } ]
query-laysum	22398	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of this systematic review. High blood pressure represents a major public health problem. Worldwide, approximately one-fourth of the adult population has hypertension. Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest a link between hyperuricaemia and hypertension. Hyperuricaemia affects 25% to 40% of those with untreated hypertension; a much lower prevalence has been reported in those with normotension or in the general population. However, whether lowering serum uric acid (UA) might lower blood pressure (BP), is an unanswered question.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether UA-lowering agents reduce BP in people with primary hypertension or prehypertension, compared with placebo.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to May 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL 2018, Issue 12, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched LILACS (1982 to May 2020), and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nTo be included in this updated review, the studies had to meet the following criteria: 1) randomised or quasi-randomised, with a group assigned to receive a UA-lowering agent and another group assigned to receive placebo; 2) double-blind, single-blind, or open-label; 3) parallel or cross-over trial design; 4) cross-over trials had to have a washout period of at least two weeks; 5) minimum treatment duration of four weeks; 6) participants had to have a diagnosis of essential hypertension or prehypertension plus hyperuricaemia (serum UA greater than 6 mg/dL in women, 7 mg/dL in men, and 5.5 mg/dL in children or adolescents); 7) outcome measures included change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic or diastolic BP, or both; or clinic-measured systolic or diastolic BP, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nThe two review authors independently collected the data using a data extraction form, and resolved any disagreements via discussion. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nIn this review update, we screened 722 records, selected 26 full-text reports for evaluation. We identified no ongoing studies and did not add any new studies. We included three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling 211 people with hypertension or prehypertension, plus hyperuricaemia.\nLow-certainty evidence from three RCTs found inconclusive results between those who received UA-lowering drugs and placebo, in 24-hour ambulatory systolic (MD -6.2 mmHg, 95% CI -12.8 to 0.5) or diastolic BP (-3.9 mmHg, 95% CI -9.2 to 1.4).\nLow-certainty evidence from two RCTs found that UA-lowering drugs reduced clinic-measured systolic BP (-8.43 mmHg, 95% CI -15.24 to -1.62) but results for clinic-measured diastolic BP were inconclusive (-6.45 mmHg, 95% CI -13.60 to 0.70).\nHigh-certainty evidence from three RCTs found that serum UA levels were reduced by 3.1 mg/dL (95% CI 2.4 to 3.8) in the participants that received UA-lowering drugs.\nLow-certainty evidence from three RCTs found inconclusive results regarding the occurrence of adverse events between those who received UA-lowering drugs and placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 8.10).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this updated Cochrane Review, the current RCT data are insufficient to know whether UA-lowering therapy lowers BP. More studies are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In this update, we examined 722 records, and selected 26 for further evaluation. We did not find any additional studies to add to the three studies (211 participants) that were already included in the review. These studies evaluated adolescents and adults. They compared drug therapy, given to decrease uric acid, with a placebo control, in people diagnosed with hypertension." } ]
query-laysum	22399	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRecruitment manoeuvres involve transient elevations in airway pressure applied during mechanical ventilation to open (‘recruit’) collapsed lung units and increase the number of alveoli participating in tidal ventilation. Recruitment manoeuvres are often used to treat patients in intensive care who have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the effect of this treatment on clinical outcomes has not been well established. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2009.\nObjectives\nOur primary objective was to determine the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on mortality in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome.\nOur secondary objective was to determine, in the same population, the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on oxygenation and adverse events (e.g. rate of barotrauma).\nSearch methods\nFor this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCO), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry from inception to August 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults who were mechanically ventilated that compared recruitment manoeuvres versus standard care for patients given a diagnosis of ARDS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nTen trials met the inclusion criteria for this review (n = 1658 participants). We found five trials to be at low risk of bias and five to be at moderate risk of bias. Six of the trials included recruitment manoeuvres as part of an open lung ventilation strategy that was different from control ventilation in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (such as mode of ventilation, higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration and lower tidal volume or plateau pressure). Six studies reported mortality outcomes. Pooled data from five trials (1370 participants) showed a reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.97, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence), pooled data from five trials (1450 participants) showed no difference in 28-day mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06, low-quality evidence) and pooled data from four trials (1313 participants) showed no difference in in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01, P = 0.07, low-quality evidence). Data revealed no differences in risk of barotrauma (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.53, P = 0.60, seven studies, 1508 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified significant clinical heterogeneity in the 10 included trials. Results are based upon the findings of several (five) trials that included an \"open lung ventilation strategy\", whereby the intervention group differed from the control group in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (including co-interventions such as higher PEEP, different modes of ventilation and higher plateau pressure), making interpretation of the results difficult. A ventilation strategy that included recruitment manoeuvres in participants with ARDS reduced intensive care unit mortality without increasing the risk of barotrauma but had no effect on 28-day and hospital mortality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low, as most of the included trials provided co-interventions as part of an open lung ventilation strategy, and this might have influenced results of the outcome.\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": "Low-quality evidence suggests that recruitment manoeuvres improve ICU survival but not 28-day or hospital survival. Recruitment manoeuvres have no effect on the risk of air leakage from the lungs." } ]
query-laysum	22400	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis updated Cochrane Review of reminiscence therapy (RT) for dementia was first published in 1998, and last updated in 2005. RT involves the discussion of memories and past experiences with other people using tangible prompts such as photographs or music to evoke memories and stimulate conversation. RT is implemented widely in a range of settings using a variety of formats.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of RT on people living with dementia and their carers, taking into account differences in its implementation, including setting (care home, community) and modality (group, individual).\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS (the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register) on 6 April 2017 using the search term 'reminiscence.'\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials of RT for dementia in which the duration of the intervention was at least four weeks (or six sessions) and that had a 'no treatment' or passive control group. Outcomes of interest were quality of life (QoL), cognition, communication, behaviour, mood and carer outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors (LOP and EF) independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from all sufficiently similar studies reporting on each outcome. We undertook subgroup analysis by setting (community versus care home) and by modality (individual versus group). We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 22 studies involving 1972 people with dementia. Meta-analyses included data from 16 studies (1749 participants). Apart from six studies with risk of selection bias, the overall risk of bias in the studies was low.\nOverall, moderate quality evidence indicated RT did not have an important effect on QoL immediately after the intervention period compared with no treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.33; I2 = 59%; 8 studies; 1060 participants). Inconsistency between studies mainly related to the study setting. There was probably a slight benefit in favour of RT in care homes post-treatment (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; 3 studies; 193 participants), but little or no difference in QoL in community settings (867 participants from five studies).\nFor cognitive measures, there was high quality evidence for a very small benefit, of doubtful clinical importance, associated with reminiscence at the end of treatment (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.23; 14 studies; 1219 participants), but little or no difference at longer-term follow-up. There was a probable slight improvement for individual reminiscence and for care homes when analysed separately, but little or no difference for community settings or for group studies. Nine studies included the widely used Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a cognitive measure, and, on this scale, there was high quality evidence for an improvement at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) 1.87 points, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.20; 437 participants). There was a similar effect at longer-term follow-up, but the quality of evidence for this analysis was low (1.8 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 3.65).\nFor communication measures, there may have been a benefit of RT at the end of treatment (SMD -0.51 points, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.05; I2 = 62%; negative scores indicated improvement; 6 studies; 249 participants), but there was inconsistency between studies, related to the RT modality. At follow-up, there was probably a slight benefit of RT (SMD -0.49 points, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.21; 4 studies; 204 participants). Effects were uncertain for individual RT, with very low quality evidence available. For reminiscence groups, evidence of moderate quality indicated a probable slight benefit immediately (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.06; 4 studies; 153 participants), and at later follow-up. Community participants probably benefited at end of treatment and follow-up. For care home participants, the results were inconsistent between studies and, while there may be an improvement at follow-up, at the end of treatment the evidence quality was very low and effects were uncertain.\nOther outcome domains examined for people with dementia included mood, functioning in daily activities, agitation/irritability and relationship quality. There were no clear effects in these domains. Individual reminiscence was probably associated with a slight benefit on depression scales, although its clinical importance was uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.06; 4 studies; 131 participants). We found no evidence of any harmful effects on people with dementia.\nWe also looked at outcomes for carers, including stress, mood and quality of relationship with the person with dementia (from the carer's perspective). We found no evidence of effects on carers other than a potential adverse outcome related to carer anxiety at longer-term follow-up, based on two studies that had involved the carer jointly in reminiscence groups with people with dementia. The control group carers were probably slightly less anxious (MD 0.56 points, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.30; 464 participants), but this result is of uncertain clinical importance, and is also consistent with little or no effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of reminiscence interventions are inconsistent, often small in size and can differ considerably across settings and modalities. RT has some positive effects on people with dementia in the domains of QoL, cognition, communication and mood. Care home studies show the widest range of benefits, including QoL, cognition and communication (at follow-up). Individual RT is associated with probable benefits for cognition and mood. Group RT and a community setting are associated with probable improvements in communication. The wide range of RT interventions across studies makes comparisons and evaluation of relative benefits difficult. Treatment protocols are not described in sufficient detail in many publications. There have been welcome improvements in the quality of research on RT since the previous version of this review, although there still remains a need for more randomised controlled trials following clear, detailed treatment protocols, especially allowing the effects of simple and integrative RT to be compared.\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": "We were encouraged to find that the amount and quality of research on RT for dementia has increased considerably since the last version of this review. We concluded that the effects of RT vary, depending on the way it is given and whether it takes place in care homes or the community. However, there is some evidence that RT can improve quality of life, cognition, communication and possibly mood in people with dementia in some circumstances, although all the benefits were small. More research is needed to understand these differences and to find out who is likely to benefit most from what type of RT." } ]
query-laysum	22401	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA pressure injury (PI), also referred to as a 'pressure ulcer', or 'bedsore', is an area of localised tissue damage caused by unrelieved pressure, friction, or shearing on any part of the body. Immobility is a major risk factor and manual repositioning a common prevention strategy. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of repositioning regimens(i.e. repositioning schedules and patient positions) on the prevention of PI in adults regardless of risk in any setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus on 12 February 2019. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of 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\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials (c-RCTs), published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any repositioning schedule or different patient positions and measured PI incidence in adults in any setting.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified five additional trials and one economic substudy in this update, resulting in the inclusion of a total of eight trials involving 3941 participants from acute and long-term care settings and two economic substudies in the review. Six studies reported the proportion of participants developing PI of any stage. Two of the eight trials reported within-trial cost evaluations. Follow-up periods were short (24 hours to 21 days). All studies were at high risk of bias. Funding sources were reported in five trials.\nPrimary outcomes: proportion of new PI of any stage\nRepositioning frequencies: three trials compared different repositioning frequencies\nWe pooled data from three trials (1074 participants) comparing 2-hourly with 4-hourly repositioning frequencies (fixed-effect; I² = 45%; pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.41). It is uncertain whether 2-hourly repositioning compared with 4-hourly repositioning used in conjunction with any support surface increases or decreases the incidence of PI. The certainty of the evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, downgraded twice for risk of bias, and once for imprecision.\nOne of these trials had three arms (967 participants) comparing 2-hourly, 3-hourly, and 4-hourly repositioning regimens on high-density mattresses; data for one comparison was included in the pooled analysis. Another comparison was based on 2-hourly versus 3-hourly repositioning. The RR for PI incidence was 4.06 (95% CI 0.87 to 18.98). The third study comparison was based on 3-hourly versus 4-hourly repositioning (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92). The certainty of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and imprecision.\nIn one c-RCT, 262 participants in 32 ward clusters were randomised between 2-hourly and 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattresses and 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic mattresses. The RR for PI with 2-hourly repositioning compared with 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattress is imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.16; very low-certainty evidence). The CI for PI include both a large reduction and no difference for the comparison of 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic foam (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02). The certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded twice due to high risk of bias, and once for imprecision.\nPositioning regimens: four trials compared different tilt positions\nWe pooled data from two trials (252 participants) that compared a 30° tilt with a 90° tilt (random-effects; I² = 69%). There was no clear difference in the incidence of stage 1 or 2 PI. The effect of tilt is uncertain because the certainty of evidence is very low (pooled RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.97), downgraded due to serious design limitations and very serious imprecision.\nOne trial involving 120 participants compared 30° tilt and 45° tilt with 'usual care' and reported no occurrence of PI events (low certainty evidence). Another trial involving 116 ICU patients compared prone with the usual supine positioning for PI. Reporting was incomplete and this is low certainty evidence.\nSecondary outcomes\nNo studies reported health-related quality of life utility scores, procedural pain, or patient satisfaction.\nCost analysis\nTwo included trials also performed economic analyses.\nA cost-minimisation analysis compared the costs of 3-hourly and 4-hourly repositioning with 2-hourly repositioning schedule amongst nursing home residents. The cost of repositioning was estimated at CAD 11.05 and CAD 16.74 less per resident per day for the 3-hourly or 4-hourly regimen, respectively, compared with the 2-hourly regimen. The estimates of economic benefit were driven mostly by the value of freed nursing time. The analysis assumed that 2-, 3-, or 4-hourly repositioning is associated with a similar incidence of PI, as no difference in incidence was observed.\nA second study compared the nursing time cost of 3-hourly repositioning using a 30° tilt with standard care (6-hourly repositioning with a 90° lateral rotation) amongst nursing home residents. The intervention was reported to be cost-saving compared with standard care (nursing time cost per patient EUR 206.60 versus EUR 253.10, incremental difference EUR −46.50, 95% CI EUR −1.25 to EUR −74.60).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the addition of five trials, the results of this update are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty. There remains a lack of robust evaluations of repositioning frequency and positioning for PI prevention and uncertainty about their effectiveness. Since all comparisons were underpowered, there is a high level of uncertainty in the evidence base.\nGiven the limited data from economic evaluations, it remains unclear whether repositioning every three hours using the 30° tilt versus \"usual care\" (90° tilt) or repositioning 3-to-4-hourly versus 2-hourly is less costly relative to nursing time.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What were the main results of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We identified eight clinical trials and two economic analyses published between 2004 and 2018 involving 3941 participants. Participant age ranged from 55 to 90 years. Three clinical trials compared repositioning frequencies using 2-, 3-, 4-, or 6-hourly repositioning. Three other trials compared different tilt positions.\nTwo included trials also included cost-effectiveness analyses. No studies reported health-related quality of life, procedural pain, or patient satisfaction.\nThe evidence to support the use of one particular repositioning frequency and position over another to prevent pressure injuries is low in quality and limited in amount, therefore which position or frequency of repositioning is the most effective in reducing pressure injury development is unclear. None of the included trials reported on participant pain, satisfaction, or quality of life. Results were inconclusive, and the certainty of the evidence in the included trials is low to very low." } ]
query-laysum	22402	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMenorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an excessive blood loss that impairs a woman's quality of life, either physical, emotional, social or material. It is benign and not associated with pregnancy or any other gynaecological or systemic disease. Medical treatments used to reduce excessive menstrual blood loss (MBL) include prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, antifibrinolytics, oral contraceptive pills, and other hormones. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is claimed to have a variety of beneficial effects, inducing a regular shedding of a thinner endometrium and inhibiting ovulation, thus having the effect of both treating HMB and providing contraception. More recently, a contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) has been trialled to investigate whether this treatment can provide similar benefits to COCP while lessening hormonal systemic exposure. This review is an update of a review which originally focused on COCP alone. The scope of the review has been widened to consider other types of delivery of combined hormonal contraceptives for reduction of MBL.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives (pills, vaginal ring or patch) compared with other medical therapies, placebo, or no therapy in the treatment of HMB. A secondary objective was to compare the COCP with the CVR.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Gynecology and Fertility Group trials register, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (search dates: Oct 1996, May 2002, June 2004, April 2006, June 2009, July 2017 and September 2018) for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of COCP and CVR for the treatment of HMB. We also searched trial registers and the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of COCP or CVR compared with no treatment, placebo, or other medical therapies for women with HMB and regular menstrual cycles.\nData collection and analysis\nAll assessments of trial quality and data extraction were performed unblinded by at least two review authors. Our primary review outcomes were treatment success, menstrual bleeding (assessed objectively, semi-objectively or subjectively), and participant satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and haemoglobin level.\nMain results\nWe identified eight RCTs involving 805 participants. Two trials comparing COCP with placebo were considered to be moderate quality and the remaining studies were low to very low quality, mainly because of serious risk of bias from lack of blinding and concerns over precision.\nCOCP versus placebo\nCOCP, with a step-down oestrogen and step-up progestogen regimen, improved response to treatment (return to menstrual 'normality') (OR 22.12, 95% CI 4.40 to 111.12; 2 trials; 363 participants; I2 = 50%; moderate-quality evidence), and lowered MBL (OR 5.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 8.40; 2 trials; 339 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) when compared to placebo. The results suggested that, if the chance of 'successful' treatment was 3% in women taking placebo, then COCP increased this chance from 12% to 77% in women with unacceptable HMB. Minor adverse events, in particular breast pain, were more common with COCP. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment.\nCOCP versus other medical treatments\nNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether the COCP reduced MBL when compared to NSAIDs (mefenamic acid and naproxen). No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, participant satisfaction with treatment or adverse events.\nLevonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS)\nThe LNG IUS was more effective than COCP in reducing MBL (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.48; 2 trials; 151 participants; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) but it was not clear whether satisfaction with treatment or adverse effects varied according to which treatment was used. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.\nContraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) versus other medical treatments\nCOCP\nCOCP was compared with CVR in two trials. There were discrepancies between some of the findings and there was no evidence of a benefit for one treatment compared to the other for response to treatment, MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. There was a greater likelihood of nausea with COCP. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.\nProgestogens\nCVR was compared to long course progestogens in one trial. It is possible that CVR increased the odds of satisfaction; but we are uncertain whether CVR improved MBL. The evidence was based on small numbers of participants and was very low quality, so definitive conclusions could not be reached. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, or adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-quality evidence suggests that the combined oral contraceptive pill over six months reduces HMB in women with unacceptable HMB from 12% to 77% (compared to 3% in women taking placebo). When compared with other medical options for HMB, COCP was less effective than the LNG IUS. Limited evidence suggested that COCP and CVR had similar effects. There was insufficient evidence to determine comparative efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives with NSAIDs, or long course progestogens.\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": "HMB can cause anaemia (too few red blood cells) and interfere with a woman's quality of life and well-being. This means that premenopausal women may often consult with their own doctor or seek referral to gynaecology specialists to treat their menstrual bleeding. Combined oral contraceptive pills (COCP) can provide control of the menstrual cycle by thinning the endometrium (the lining of the womb that is shed during menstruation). It is possible that contraceptives delivered in other ways (via a vaginal ring or patch on the skin) may also act in a similar way and reduce menstrual blood loss." } ]
query-laysum	22403	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise training is commonly recommended for adults with fibromyalgia. We defined whole body vibration (WBV) exercise as use of a vertical or rotary oscillating platform as an exercise stimulus while the individual engages in sustained static positioning or dynamic movements. The individual stands on the platform, and oscillations result in vibrations transmitted to the subject through the legs. This review is one of a series of reviews that replaces the first review published in 2002.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate benefits and harms of WBV exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Thesis and Dissertation Abstracts, AMED, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 2016, unrestricted by language, to identify potentially relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with the diagnosis of fibromyalgia based on published criteria including a WBV intervention versus control 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 risk of bias assessments, and assessed the quality of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. We used a 15% threshold for calculation of clinically relevant differences.\nMain results\nWe included four studies involving 150 middle-aged female participants from one country. Two studies had two treatment arms (71 participants) that compared WBV plus mixed exercise plus relaxation versus mixed exercise plus relaxation and placebo WBV versus control, and WBV plus mixed exercise versus mixed exercise and control; two studies had three treatment arms (79 participants) that compared WBV plus mixed exercise versus control and mixed relaxation placebo WBV. We judged the overall risk of bias as low for selection (random sequence generation), detection (objectively measured outcomes), attrition, and other biases; as unclear for selection bias (allocation concealment); and as high for performance, detection (self-report outcomes), and selective reporting biases.\nThe WBV versus control comparison reported on three major outcomes assessed at 12 weeks post intervention based on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) (0 to 100 scale, lower score is better). Results for HRQL in the control group at end of treatment (59.13) showed a mean difference (MD) of -3.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] -10.81 to 3.35) for absolute HRQL, or improvement of 4% (11% better to 3% worse) and relative improvement of 6.7% (19.6% better to 6.1% worse). Results for withdrawals indicate that 14 per 100 and 10 per 100 in the intervention and control groups, respectively, withdrew from the intervention (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.67; absolute change 4%, 95% CI 16% fewer to 24% more; relative change 43% more, 95% CI 73% fewer to 667% more). The only adverse event reported was acute pain in the legs, for which one participant dropped out of the program. We judged the quality of evidence for all outcomes as very low. This study did not measure pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, or physical function. No outcomes in this comparison met the 15% threshold for clinical relevance.\nThe WBV plus mixed exercise (aerobic, strength, flexibility, and relaxation) versus control study (N = 21) evaluated symptoms at six weeks post intervention using the FIQ. Results for HRQL at end of treatment (59.64) showed an MD of -16.02 (95% CI -31.57 to -0.47) for absolute HRQL, with improvement of 16% (0.5% to 32%) and relative change in HRQL of 24% (0.7% to 47%). Data showed a pain intensity MD of -28.22 (95% CI -43.26 to -13.18) for an absolute difference of 28% (13% to 43%) and a relative change of 39% improvement (18% to 60%); as well as a fatigue MD of -33 (95% CI -49 to -16) for an absolute difference of 33% (16% to 49%) and relative difference of 47% (95% CI 23% to 60%); and a stiffness MD of -26.27 (95% CI -42.96 to -9.58) for an absolute difference of 26% (10% to 43%) and a relative difference of 36.5% (23% to 60%). All-cause withdrawals occurred in 8 per 100 and 33 per 100 withdrawals in the intervention and control groups, respectively (two studies, N = 46; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.12) for an absolute risk difference of 24% (3% to 51%). One participant exhibited a mild anxiety attack at the first session of WBV. No studies in this comparison reported on physical function. Several outcomes (based on the findings of one study) in this comparison met the 15% threshold for clinical relevance: HRQL, pain intensity, fatigue, and stiffness, which improved by 16%, 39%, 46%, and 36%, respectively. We found evidence of very low quality for all outcomes.\nThe WBV plus mixed exercise versus other exercise provided very low quality evidence for all outcomes. Investigators evaluated outcomes on a 0 to 100 scale (lower score is better) for pain intensity (one study, N = 23; MD -16.36, 95% CI -29.49 to -3.23), HRQL (two studies, N = 49; MD -6.67, 95% CI -14.65 to 1.31), fatigue (one study, N = 23; MD -14.41, 95% CI -29.47 to 0.65), stiffness (one study, N = 23; MD -12.72, 95% CI -26.90 to 1.46), and all-cause withdrawal (three studies, N = 77; RR 0.72, 95% CI -0.17 to 3.11). Adverse events reported for the three studies included one anxiety attack at the first session of WBV and one dropout from the comparison group (\"other exercise group\") due to an injury that was not related to the program. No studies reported on physical function.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhether WBV or WBV in addition to mixed exercise is superior to control or another intervention for women with fibromyalgia remains uncertain. The quality of evidence is very low owing to imprecision (few study participants and wide confidence intervals) and issues related to risk of bias. These trials did not measure major outcomes such as pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, and physical function. Overall, studies were few and were very small, which prevented meaningful estimates of harms and definitive conclusions about WBV safety.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Adverse events (narrative)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "WBV vs control\nOne person dropped out because of acute pain in the legs. We are uncertain whether vibration training combined with other exercise provides additional benefits over control or vibration training alone, as evidence was of very low quality because of study design flaws and small numbers of participants.\nWBV + MX vs MX\nStudy authors stated that this program did not make symptoms worse and did not result in injury; one patient exhibited a mild anxiety attack at the first session." } ]
query-laysum	22404	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nResistance to antiretroviral therapy (ART) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) compromises treatment effectiveness, often leading to virological failure and mortality. Antiretroviral drug resistance tests may be used at the time of initiation of therapy, or when treatment failure occurs, to inform the choice of ART regimen. Resistance tests (genotypic or phenotypic) are widely used in high-income countries, but not in resource-limited settings. This systematic review summarizes the relative merits of resistance testing in treatment-naive and treatment-exposed people living with HIV.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of antiretroviral resistance testing (genotypic or phenotypic) in reducing mortality and morbidity in HIV-positive people.\nSearch methods\nWe attempted to identify all relevant studies, regardless of language or publication status, through searches of electronic databases and conference proceedings up to 26 January 2018. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov to 26 January 2018. We searched Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and the Web of Science for publications from 1996 to 26 January 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared resistance testing to no resistance testing in people with HIV irrespective of their exposure to ART.\nPrimary outcomes of interest were mortality and virological failure. Secondary outcomes were change in mean CD4-T-lymphocyte count, clinical progression to AIDS, development of a second or new opportunistic infection, change in viral load, and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed each reference for prespecified inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data from each included study using a standardized data extraction form. We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis using a random-effects model. We performed subgroup analyses for the type of resistance test used (phenotypic or genotypic), use of expert advice to interpret resistance tests, and age (children and adolescents versus adults). We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nEleven RCTs (published between 1999 and 2006), which included 2531 participants, met our inclusion criteria. All of these trials exclusively enrolled patients who had previous exposure to ART. We found no observational studies. Length of follow-up time, study settings, and types of resistance testing varied greatly. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 150 weeks. All studies were conducted in Europe, USA, or South America. Seven studies used genotypic testing, two used phenotypic testing, and two used both phenotypic and genotypic testing. Only one study was funded by a manufacturer of resistance tests.\nResistance testing made little or no difference in mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.22; 5 trials, 1140 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may have slightly reduced the number of people with virological failure (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; 10 trials, 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably made little or no difference in change in CD4 cell count (mean difference (MD) -1.00 cells/mm³, 95% CI -12.49 to 10.50; 7 trials, 1349 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or progression to AIDS (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29; 3 trials, 809 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Resistance testing made little or no difference in adverse events (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.55; 4 trials, 808 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduced viral load (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.11; 10 trials, 1837 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported on development of new opportunistic infections or quality of life. We found no statistically significant heterogeneity for any outcomes, and the I² statistic value ranged from 0 to 25%. We found no subgroup effects for types of resistance testing (genotypic versus phenotypic), the addition of expert advice to interpretation of resistance tests, or age. Results for mortality were consistent when we compared studies at high or unclear risk of bias versus studies at low risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nResistance testing probably improved virological outcomes in people who have had virological failure in trials conducted 12 or more years ago. We found no evidence in treatment-naive people. Resistance testing did not demonstrate important patient benefits in terms of risk of death or progression to AIDS. The trials included very few participants from low- and middle-income countries.\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": "For people for whom treatment no longer works, the use of resistance tests to select new treatments led to suppression of the HIV virus as measured by a blood test, but probably did not reduce the risk of death or progression to AIDS. Whether or not resistance testing provides any benefit for patients who are starting HIV treatment for the first time remains uncertain because no studies have evaluated this. These conclusions are based on studies conducted up to 12 years ago and included very few participants from low- and middle-income countries." } ]
query-laysum	22405	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBecause of poverty, children and families in low- and middle-income countries often face significant impediments to health and well-being. Centre-based day care services may influence the development of children and the economic situation of parents by providing good quality early childhood care and by freeing parents to participate in the labour force.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of centre-based day care without additional interventions (e.g. psychological or medical services, parent training) on the development, health and well-being of children and families in low- and middle-income countries (as defined by the World Bank 2011).\nSearch methods\nIn April 2014, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC and 16 other sources, including several World Health Organization (WHO) regional databases. We also searched two trials registers, websites of government and non-government agencies and reference lists of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials and prospective non-randomised studies with contemporaneous control groups and assessments both before and after intervention. We considered non-randomised controlled trials, as centre-based care in low- and middle-income countries is unlikely to be studied using randomised controlled trials (Higgins 2011). We included the following outcomes: child intellectual development, child psychosocial development, maternal and family outcomes and incidence of infectious diseases.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from the single included study.\nMain results\nOnly one trial, involving 256 children, met the inclusion criteria for this review. This study was assessed as having high risk of bias because of non-random allocation, incomplete outcome data and insufficient control of confounding factors. Results from this study suggest that centre-based day care may have a positive effect on child cognitive ability compared with no treatment (care at home) (assessed using a modified version of the British Ability Scale-II (BAS-II) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.00, 256 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure other variables relevant to this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe single study included in this review provides limited evidence on the effects of centre-based day care for children younger than five years of age in low- and middle-income countries. This study was at high risk of bias and may have limited generalisability to other low- and middle-income countries. Many of the studies excluded from this review paired day care attendance with co-interventions that are unlikely to be provided in normal day care centres. Effectiveness studies on centre-based day care without these co-interventions are few, and the need for such studies is significant. In future studies, comparisons might include home visits or alternative day care arrangements.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review evaluated the effects of centre-based day care for children younger than five years of age in low- and middle-income countries (as defined by the World Bank 2011). We considered the following outcomes: children's cognitive and psychosocial development, prevalence and incidence of infectious diseases among them and the economic situation of parents. We defined 'centre-based day care' as the supervision of children in a publicly accessible location." } ]
query-laysum	22406	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOvarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynaecological cancer in developed countries. Surgery and chemotherapy are considered its mainstay of treatment and the completeness of surgery is a major prognostic factor for survival in these women. Currently, computed tomography (CT) is used to preoperatively assess tumour resectability. If considered feasible, women will be scheduled for primary debulking surgery (i.e. surgical efforts to remove the bulk of tumour with the aim of leaving no visible (macroscopic) tumour). If primary debulking is not considered feasible (i.e. the tumour load is too extensive), women will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce tumour load and subsequently undergo (interval) surgery. However, CT is imperfect in assessing tumour resectability, so additional imaging modalities can be considered to optimise treatment selection.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of fluorodeoxyglucose-18 (FDG) PET/CT, conventional and diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI as replacement or add-on to abdominal CT, for assessing tumour resectability at primary debulking surgery in women with stage III to IV epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE and Embase (OVID) for potential eligible studies (1946 to 23 February 2017). Additionally, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO-ICTRP and the reference list of all relevant studies were searched.\nSelection criteria\nDiagnostic accuracy studies addressing the accuracy of preoperative FDG-PET/CT, conventional or DW-MRI on assessing tumour resectability in women with advanced stage (III to IV) epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer who are scheduled to undergo primary debulking surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance and inclusion, extracted data and performed methodological quality assessment using QUADAS-2. The limited number of studies did not permit meta-analyses.\nMain results\nFive studies (544 participants) were included in the analysis. All studies performed the index test as replacement of abdominal CT. Two studies (366 participants) addressed the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease of any size (> 0 cm) with sensitivities of 1.0 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.0) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73) and specificities of 1.0 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.0) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.93), respectively (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies (178 participants) investigated MRI for different target conditions, of which two investigated DW-MRI and one conventional MRI. The first study showed that DW-MRI determines incomplete debulking with residual disease of any size with a sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.99) and a specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00) (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). For abdominal CT, the sensitivity for assessing incomplete debulking was 0.66 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.78) and the specificity 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.87) (low- and low-certainty evidence). The second study reported a sensitivity of DW-MRI of 0.75 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.97) and a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.00) (very low-certainty evidence) for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease > 1 cm. In the last study, the sensitivity for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease of > 2 cm on conventional MRI was 0.91 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.00) and the specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.00) (very low-certainty evidence). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low to moderate (according to GRADE), mainly due to small sample sizes and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nStudies suggested a high specificity and moderate sensitivity for FDG-PET/CT and MRI to assess macroscopic incomplete debulking. However, the certainty of the evidence was insufficient to advise routine addition of FDG-PET/CT or MRI to clinical practice..\nIn a research setting, adding an alternative imaging method could be considered for women identified as suitable for primary debulking by abdominal CT, in an attempt to filter out false-negatives (i.e. debulking, feasible based on abdominal CT, unfeasible at actual surgery).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We identified two studies (with 366 participants) addressing the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT and three studies (with 178 participants) investigating the accuracy of MRI.\nIn a hypothetical group of 1000 women, of whom 620 would have residual tumour after surgery (prevalence 62%), 211 women would incorrectly be considered suitable for surgery according to FDG-PET/CT and 37 women according to MRI. However, the quality and quantity of these studies were insufficient for these imaging techniques to be used routinely in clinical practice. Therefore, the authors concluded that more research is needed before such a recommendation can be made." } ]
query-laysum	22407	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInadequate pain management after surgery increases the risk of postoperative complications and may predispose for chronic postsurgical pain. Perioperative ketamine may enhance conventional analgesics in the acute postoperative setting.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative intravenous ketamine in adult patients when used for the treatment or prevention of acute pain following general anaesthesia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to July 2018 and three trials registers (metaRegister of controlled trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia and being treated with perioperative intravenous ketamine. Studies compared ketamine with placebo, or compared ketamine plus a basic analgesic, such as morphine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), with a basic analgesic alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and performed analyses. Primary outcomes were opioid consumption and pain intensity at rest and during movement at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were time to first analgesic request, assessment of postoperative hyperalgesia, central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included 130 studies with 8341 participants. Ketamine was given to 4588 participants and 3753 participants served as controls. Types of surgery included ear, nose or throat surgery, wisdom tooth extraction, thoracotomy, lumbar fusion surgery, microdiscectomy, hip joint replacement surgery, knee joint replacement surgery, anterior cruciate ligament repair, knee arthroscopy, mastectomy, haemorrhoidectomy, abdominal surgery, radical prostatectomy, thyroid surgery, elective caesarean section, and laparoscopic surgery. Racemic ketamine bolus doses were predominantly 0.25 mg to 1 mg, and infusions 2 to 5 µg/kg/minute; 10 studies used only S-ketamine and one only R-ketamine. Risk of bias was generally low or uncertain, except for study size; most had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, resulting in high heterogeneity, as expected, for most analyses. We did not stratify the main analysis by type of surgery or any other factor, such as dose or timing of ketamine administration, and used a non-stratified analysis.\nPerioperative intravenous ketamine reduced postoperative opioid consumption over 24 hours by 8 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI 6 to 9; 19% from 42 mg consumed by participants given placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 65 studies, 4004 participants). Over 48 hours, opioid consumption was 13 mg lower (95% CI 10 to 15; 19% from 67 mg with placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 37 studies, 2449 participants).\nPerioperative intravenous ketamine reduced pain at rest at 24 hours by 5/100 mm on a visual analogue scale (95% CI 4 to 7; 19% lower from 26/100 mm with placebo, high-quality evidence; 82 studies, 5004 participants), and at 48 hours by 5/100 mm (95% CI 3 to 7; 22% lower from 23/100 mm, high-quality evidence; 49 studies, 2962 participants). Pain during movement was reduced at 24 hours (6/100 mm, 14% lower from 42/100 mm, moderate-quality evidence; 29 studies, 1806 participants), and 48 hours (6/100 mm, 16% lower from 37 mm, low-quality evidence; 23 studies, 1353 participants).\nResults for primary outcomes were consistent when analysed by pain at rest or on movement, operation type, and timing of administration, or sensitivity to study size and pain intensity. No analysis by dose was possible. There was no difference when nitrous oxide was used. We downgraded the quality of the evidence once if numbers of participants were large but small-study effects were present, or twice if numbers were small and small-study effects likely but testing not possible.\nKetamine increased the time for the first postoperative analgesic request by 54 minutes (95% CI 37 to 71 minutes), from a mean of 39 minutes with placebo (moderate-quality evidence; 31 studies, 1678 participants). Ketamine reduced the area of postoperative hyperalgesia by 7 cm² (95% CI −11.9 to −2.2), compared with placebo (very low-quality evidence; 7 studies 333 participants). We downgraded the quality of evidence because of small-study effects or because the number of participants was below 400.\nCNS adverse events occurred in 52 studies, while 53 studies reported of absence of CNS adverse events. Overall, 187/3614 (5%) participants receiving ketamine and 122/2924 (4%) receiving control treatment experienced an adverse event (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.4; high-quality evidence; 105 studies, 6538 participants). Ketamine reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting from 27% with placebo to 23% with ketamine (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96; the number needed to treat to prevent one episode of postoperative nausea and vomiting with perioperative intravenous ketamine administration was 24 (95% CI 16 to 54; high-quality evidence; 95 studies, 5965 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nPerioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative analgesic consumption and pain intensity. Results were consistent in different operation types or timing of ketamine administration, with larger and smaller studies, and by higher and lower pain intensity. CNS adverse events were little different with ketamine or control. Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting by a small extent, of arguable clinical relevance.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In July 2018 we searched for randomised clinical trials where ketamine was injected before, during, or after operation in adults having an operation under general anaesthesia. Important outcomes were opioid use and pain at 24 and 48 hours after the operation, time to first request for a painkiller, and ketamine-related side effects. We found 130 eligible studies with 8341 participants." } ]
query-laysum	22408	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months. We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.\nData collection and analysis\nScreening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.\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": "We reviewed the evidence about whether NRT helps people who want to quit smoking to stop smoking at six months or longer. NRT aims to reduce withdrawal symptoms associated with stopping smoking by replacing the nicotine from cigarettes. NRT is available as skin patches that deliver nicotine slowly, and chewing gum, nasal and oral sprays, inhalators, and lozenges/tablets, all of which deliver nicotine to the brain more quickly than skin patches, but less rapidly than from smoking cigarettes." } ]
query-laysum	22409	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nColorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. A diagnosis of colorectal cancer and subsequent treatment can adversely affect an individuals physical and mental health. Benefits of physical activity interventions in alleviating treatment side effects have been demonstrated in other cancer populations. Given that regular physical activity can decrease the risk of colorectal cancer, and cardiovascular fitness is a strong predictor of all-cause and cancer mortality risk, physical activity interventions may have a role to play in the colorectal cancer control continuum. Evidence of the efficacy of physical activity interventions in this population remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of physical activity interventions on the disease-related physical and mental health of individuals diagnosed with non-advanced colorectal cancer, staged as T1-4 N0-2 M0, treated surgically or with neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy (i.e. chemotherapy, radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy), or both.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 6), along with OVID MEDLINE, six other databases and four trial registries with no language or date restrictions. We screened reference lists of relevant publications and handsearched meeting abstracts and conference proceedings of relevant organisations for additional relevant studies. All searches were completed between 6 June and 14 June 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised control trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs comparing physical activity interventions, to usual care or no physical activity intervention in adults with non-advanced colorectal cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, performed the data extraction, assessed the risk of bias and rated the quality of the studies using GRADE criteria. We pooled data for meta-analyses by length of follow-up, reported as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects wherever possible, or the fixed-effect model, where appropriate. If a meta-analysis was not possible, we synthesised studies narratively.\nMain results\nWe identified 16 RCTs, involving 992 participants; 524 were allocated to a physical activity intervention group and 468 to a usual care control group. The mean age of participants ranged between 51 and 69 years. Ten studies included participants who had finished active treatment, two studies included participants who were receiving active treatment, two studies included both those receiving and finished active treatment. It was unclear whether participants were receiving or finished treatment in two studies. Type, setting and duration of physical activity intervention varied between trials. Three studies opted for supervised interventions, five for home-based self-directed interventions and seven studies opted for a combination of supervised and self-directed programmes. One study did not report the intervention setting. The most common intervention duration was 12 weeks (7 studies). Type of physical activity included walking, cycling, resistance exercise, yoga and core stabilisation exercise.\nMost of the uncertainty in judging study bias came from a lack of clarity around allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. Blinding of participants and personnel was not possible. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate overall. We did not pool physical function results at immediate-term follow-up due to considerable variation in results and inconsistency of direction of effect. We are uncertain whether physical activity interventions improve physical function compared with usual care. We found no evidence of effect of physical activity interventions compared to usual care on disease-related mental health (anxiety: SMD -0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to 0.18; 4 studies, 198 participants; I2 = 0%; and depression: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.08; 4 studies, 198 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) at short- or medium-term follow-up. Seven studies reported on adverse events. We did not pool adverse events due to inconsistency in reporting and measurement. We found no evidence of serious adverse events in the intervention or usual care groups. Minor adverse events, such as neck, back and muscle pain were most commonly reported. No studies reported on overall survival or recurrence-free survival and no studies assessed outcomes at long-term follow-up\nWe found evidence of positive effects of physical activity interventions on the aerobic fitness component of physical fitness (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.29; 7 studies, 295; I2 = 68%; low-quality evidence), cancer-related fatigue (MD 2.16, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.15; 6 studies, 230 participants; I2 = 18%; low-quality evidence) and health-related quality of life (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62; 6 studies, 230 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) at immediate-term follow-up. These positive effects were also observed at short-term follow-up but not medium-term follow-up. Only three studies reported medium-term follow-up for cancer-related fatigue and health-related quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings of this review should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of studies included and the quality of the evidence. We are uncertain whether physical activity interventions improve physical function. Physical activity interventions may have no effect on disease-related mental health. Physical activity interventions may be beneficial for aerobic fitness, cancer-related fatigue and health-related quality of life up to six months follow-up. Where reported, adverse events were generally minor. Adequately powered RCTs of high methodological quality with longer-term follow-up are required to assess the effect of physical activity interventions on the disease-related physical and mental health and on survival of people with non-advanced colorectal cancer. Adverse events should be adequately reported.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review was undertaken to find out whether physical activity programmes are beneficial for the physical and mental health of people with bowel cancer and whether they are safe." } ]
query-laysum	22410	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDiagnosing acute appendicitis (appendicitis) based on clinical evaluation, blood testing, and urinalysis can be difficult. Therefore, in persons with suspected appendicitis, abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) is often used as an add-on test following the initial evaluation to reduce remaining diagnostic uncertainty. The aim of using CT is to assist the clinician in discriminating between persons who need surgery with appendicectomy and persons who do not.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nOur primary objective was to evaluate the accuracy of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults with suspected appendicitis.\nSecondary objectives\nOur secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced versus non-contrast-enhanced CT, to compare the accuracy of low-dose versus standard-dose CT, and to explore the influence of CT-scanner generation, radiologist experience, degree of clinical suspicion of appendicitis, and aspects of methodological quality on diagnostic accuracy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 16 June 2017. We also searched references lists. We did not exclude studies on the basis of language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included prospective studies that compared results of CT versus outcomes of a reference standard in adults (> 14 years of age) with suspected appendicitis. We excluded studies recruiting only pregnant women; studies in persons with abdominal pain at any location and with no particular suspicion of appendicitis; studies in which all participants had undergone ultrasonography (US) before CT and the decision to perform CT depended on the US outcome; studies using a case-control design; studies with fewer than 10 participants; and studies that did not report the numbers of true-positives, false-positives, false-negatives, and true-negatives. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently collected the data from each study and evaluated methodological quality according to the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.\nMain results\nWe identified 64 studies including 71 separate study populations with a total of 10,280 participants (4583 with and 5697 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.72 to 1.0 and estimates of specificity ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 across the 71 study populations. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 0.96), and summary specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.95). At the median prevalence of appendicitis (0.43), the probability of having appendicitis following a positive CT result was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94), and the probability of having appendicitis following a negative CT result was 0.04 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05). In subgroup analyses according to contrast enhancement, summary sensitivity was higher for CT with intravenous contrast (0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), CT with rectal contrast (0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99), and CT with intravenous and oral contrast enhancement (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98) than for unenhanced CT (0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.93). Summary sensitivity of CT with oral contrast enhancement (0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94) and unenhanced CT was similar. Results show practically no differences in summary specificity, which varied from 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.95) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) between subgroups. Summary sensitivity for low-dose CT (0.94, 95% 0.90 to 0.97) was similar to summary sensitivity for standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT (0.95, 95% 0.93 to 0.96); summary specificity did not differ between low-dose and standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT. No studies had high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool. Major methodological problems were poor reference standards and partial verification primarily due to inadequate and incomplete follow-up in persons who did not have surgery.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe sensitivity and specificity of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults are high. Unenhanced standard-dose CT appears to have lower sensitivity than standard-dose CT with intravenous, rectal, or oral and intravenous contrast enhancement. Use of different types of contrast enhancement or no enhancement does not appear to affect specificity. Differences in sensitivity and specificity between low-dose and standard-dose CT appear to be negligible. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution for two reasons. First, these results are based on studies of low methodological quality. Second, the comparisons between types of contrast enhancement and radiation dose may be unreliable because they are based on indirect comparisons that may be confounded by other factors.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is improving the diagnosis of appendicitis important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The purpose of using computed tomography (CT) in persons with suspected appendicitis is to assist the clinician in differentiating between persons who need surgery with resection of the appendix (appendicectomy) and persons who do not need this procedure." } ]
query-laysum	22411	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSeveral school-based interventions are effective in improving child diet and physical activity, and preventing excessive weight gain, and tobacco or harmful alcohol use. However, schools are frequently unsuccessful in implementing such evidence-based interventions.\nObjectives\n1. To evaluate the benefits and harms of strategies aiming to improve school implementation of interventions to address student diet, physical activity, tobacco or alcohol use, and obesity.\n2. To evaluate the benefits and harms of strategies to improve intervention implementation on measures of student diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use or alcohol use; describe their cost or cost-effectiveness; and any harms of strategies on schools, school staff or students.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was between 1 September 2016 and 30 April 2021 to identify any relevant trials published since the last published review.\nSelection criteria\nWe defined 'Implementation' as the use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence-based health interventions and to change practice patterns within specific settings. We included any trial (randomised controlled trial (RCT) or non-randomised controlled trial (non-RCT)) conducted at any scale, with a parallel control group that compared a strategy to implement policies or practices to address diet, physical activity, overweight or obesity, tobacco or alcohol use by students to 'no intervention', 'usual' practice or a different implementation strategy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Given the large number of outcomes reported, we selected and included the effects of a single outcome measure for each trial for the primary (implementation) and secondary (student health behaviour and obesity) outcomes using a decision hierarchy. Where possible, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for variable outcome measures with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For RCTs, we conducted meta-analyses of primary and secondary outcomes using a random-effects model, or in instances where there were between two and five studies, a fixed-effect model. The synthesis of the effects for non-randomised studies followed the 'Synthesis without meta-analysis' (SWiM) guidelines.\nMain results\nWe included an additional 11 trials in this update bringing the total number of included studies in the review to 38. Of these, 22 were conducted in the USA. Twenty-six studies used RCT designs. Seventeen trials tested strategies to implement healthy eating, 12 physical activity and six a combination of risk factors. Just one trial sought to increase the implementation of interventions to delay initiation or reduce the consumption of alcohol. All trials used multiple implementation strategies, the most common being educational materials, educational outreach and educational meetings.\nThe overall certainty of evidence was low and ranged from very low to moderate for secondary review outcomes.\nPooled analyses of RCTs found, relative to a control, the use of implementation strategies may result in a large increase in the implementation of interventions in schools (SMD 1.04, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34; 22 RCTs, 1917 participants; low-certainty evidence). For secondary outcomes we found, relative to control, the use of implementation strategies to support intervention implementation may result in a slight improvement on measures of student diet (SMD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; 11 RCTs, 16,649 participants; low-certainty evidence) and physical activity (SMD 0.09, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.19; 9 RCTs, 16,389 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effects on obesity probably suggest little to no difference (SMD −0.02, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.02; 8 RCTs, 18,618 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effects on tobacco use are very uncertain (SMD −0.03, 95% CIs −0.23 to 0.18; 3 RCTs, 3635 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT assessed measures of student alcohol use and found strategies to support implementation may result in a slight increase in use (odds ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.56; P = 0.60; 2105 participants). Few trials reported the economic evaluations of implementation strategies, the methods of which were heterogeneous and evidence graded as very uncertain. A lack of consistent terminology describing implementation strategies was an important limitation of the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe use of implementation strategies may result in large increases in implementation of interventions, and slight improvements in measures of student diet, and physical activity. Further research is required to assess the impact of implementation strategies on such behavioural- and obesity-related outcomes, including on measures of alcohol use, where the findings of one trial suggest it may slightly increase student risk. Given the low certainty of the available evidence for most measures further research is required to guide efforts to facilitate the translation of evidence into practice in this setting.\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": "• Schools and their staff implement interventions to address student healthy eating, physical activity, obesity, and tobacco or alcohol use better when strategies are used to support them to do so.\n• School-based interventions whose implementation is supported may be slightly more effective in improving student healthy eating, physical activity, obesity or tobacco use.\n• Most studies do not report economic evaluation of strategies to support implementation of interventions in schools or assess any potential adverse effects." } ]
query-laysum	22412	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAutism spectrum disorders (ASD) include autistic disorder, Asperger's disorder and pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). Antipsychotics have been used as a medication intervention for irritability related to ASD. Aripiprazole, a third-generation, atypical antipsychotic, is a relatively new drug that has a unique mechanism of action different from that of other antipsychotics. This review updates a previous Cochrane review on the safety and efficacy of aripiprazole for individuals with ASD, published in 2011 (Ching 2011).\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of aripiprazole as medication treatment for individuals with ASD.\nSearch methods\nIn October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and seven other databases as well as two trial registers. We searched for records published in 1990 or later, as this was the year aripiprazole became available.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of aripiprazole (administered orally and at any dosage) versus placebo for treatment of individuals with a diagnosis of ASD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently collected, evaluated and analysed data. We performed meta-analysis for primary and secondary outcomes, when possible. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rate the overall quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included three trials in this review. Two were included in the previous published review, and the results of one, placebo-controlled discontinuation study were added to this review. Although we searched for studies across age groups, we found only studies conducted in children and youth. Included trials had low risk of bias across most domains. High risk of bias was seen in only one trial with incomplete outcome data. We judged the overall quality of the evidence for most outcomes to be moderate.\nTwo RCTs with similar methods evaluated use of aripiprazole for a duration of eight weeks in 316 children/adolescents with ASD. Meta-analysis of study results revealed a mean improvement of -6.17 points on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC) - Irritability subscale (95% confidence intervals (CIs) -9.07 to -3.26, two studies, 308 children/adolescents, moderate-quality evidence), -7.93 points on the ABC - Hyperactivity subscale (95% CI -10.98 to -4.88, two studies, 308 children/adolescents, moderate-quality evidence) and -2.66 points on the ABC - Stereotypy subscale (95% CI -3.55 to -1.77, two studies, 308 children/adolescents, moderate-quality evidence) in children/adolescents taking aripiprazole relative to children/adolescents taking placebo. In terms of side effects, children/adolescents taking aripiprazole had a greater increase in weight, with a mean increase of 1.13 kg relative to placebo (95% CI 0.71 to 1.54, two studies, 308 children/adolescents, moderate-quality evidence), and had a higher risk ratio (RR) for sedation (RR 4.28, 95% CI 1.58 to 11.60, two studies, 313 children/adolescents, moderate-quality evidence) and tremor (RR 10.26, 95% CI 1.37 to 76.63, two studies, 313 children/adolescents, moderate-quality evidence). A randomised, placebo-controlled discontinuation study found that 35% of children/adolescents randomised to continue intervention with aripiprazole relapsed with respect to their symptoms of irritability, compared with 52% of children/adolescents randomised to placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.57 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.12, 85 children/adolescents, low-quality evidence).\nAll three included trials were supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb (Princeton, NJ) and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan), with editorial support provided by Ogilvy Healthworld Medical Education and Bristol-Myers Squibb.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from two RCTs suggests that aripiprazole can be effective as a short-term medication intervention for some behavioural aspects of ASD in children/adolescents. After a short-term medication intervention with aripiprazole, children/adolescents showed less irritability and hyperactivity and fewer stereotypies (repetitive, purposeless actions). However, notable side effects, such as weight gain, sedation, drooling and tremor, must be considered. One long-term, placebo discontinuation study found that relapse rates did not differ between children/adolescents randomised to continue aripiprazole versus children/adolescents randomised to receive placebo, suggesting that re-evaluation of aripiprazole use after a period of stabilisation in irritability symptoms is warranted. Studies included in this review used criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) (APA 2000) for ASD diagnosis; however, the diagnostic criteria for ASD changed significantly with release of the fifth edition of the DSM (DSM-5) in 2013 (APA 2013).\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": "Aripirazole is an antipsychotic drug - a type of medication used to treat serious mental disorders such as paranoia. It has also been used to treat behavioural problems (e.g. aggression, severe temper tantrums) in people with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Aripiprazole has been shown to be well tolerated and to improve behavioural problems in other disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. As aripiprazole is a relatively new drug, it is important to understand both the benefits and side effects of this drug in patients with ASD." } ]
query-laysum	22413	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNeonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) are at risk of developing meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Neonates who are non-vigorous due to intrapartum asphyxia are at higher risk of developing MAS. Clearance of meconium from the airways below the vocal cords by tracheal suction before initiating other steps of resuscitation may reduce the risk of development of MAS. However, conducting tracheal suction may not only be ineffective, it may also delay effective resuscitation, thus prolonging and worsening the hypoxic-ischaemic insult.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of tracheal suctioning at birth in preventing meconium aspiration syndrome and other complications among non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R) (1946 to 25 November 2020) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for RCTs and quasi-randomised trials (up to November 2020).\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies enrolling non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF, if the intervention being tested included tracheal suction at the time of birth with an intent to clear the trachea of meconium before regular breathing efforts began. Tracheal suction could be performed with an endotracheal tube or a wide-gauge suction catheter. Neonates in the control group should have been resuscitated at birth with no effort made to clear the trachea of meconium.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting with a third review author about any disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias for all studies. Our primary outcomes were: MAS; all-cause neonatal mortality; and incidence of hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE). Secondary outcomes included: need for mechanical ventilation; incidence of pulmonary air leaks; culture-positive sepsis; and persistent pulmonary hypertension. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included four studies (enrolling 581 neonates) in the review. All four studies were conducted in tertiary care hospitals in India. Three of the four studies included neonates born at and beyond term gestation, whereas one included neonates born at and beyond 34 weeks of gestation. Due to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the healthcare personnel conducting the intervention.\nTracheal suction compared to no suction in non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF\nIn non-vigorous infants, no differences were noted in the risks of MAS (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.08; 4 studies, 581 neonates) or all-cause neonatal mortality (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07; 4 studies, 575 neonates) with or without tracheal suctioning. No differences were reported in the risk of any severity HIE (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.63; 1 study, 175 neonates) or moderate to severe HIE (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; 1 study, 152 neonates) among non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF. We are also uncertain as to the effect of tracheal suction on other outcomes such as incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 4 studies, 581 neonates), pulmonary air leaks (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.93; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 3 studies, 449 neonates), persistent pulmonary hypertension (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06; 3 studies, 406 neonates) and culture-positive sepsis (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.57; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 3 studies, 406 neonates). All reported outcomes were judged as providing very low certainty evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the effect of tracheal suction on the incidence of MAS and its complications among non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF. One study awaits classification and could not be included in the review. More research from well-conducted large trials is needed to conclusively answer the review question.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "To determine the efficacy of clearing the trachea (windpipe) of meconium by introducing a tube into the windpipe (intubation), and suction at birth in babies who are born through the meconium-stained amniotic fluid and are depressed (identified by not breathing or limp or low heart rate) at birth." } ]
query-laysum	22414	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nApproximately 800 million women and children have anaemia, a condition thought to cause almost 9% of the global burden of years lived with disability. Around half this burden could be amenable to interventions that involve the provision of iron. Maize (corn) is one of the world's most important cereal grains and is cultivated across most of the globe. Several programmes around the world have fortified maize flour and other maize-derived foodstuffs with iron and other vitamins and minerals to combat anaemia and iron deficiency.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of iron fortification of maize flour, corn meal and fortified maize flour products for anaemia and iron status in the general population.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following international and regional sources in December 2017 and January 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; MEDLINE (R) In Process; Embase; Web of Science (both the Social Science Citation Index and the Science Citation Index); CINAHL Ebsco; POPLINE; AGRICOLA (agricola.nal.usda.gov); BIOSIS (ISI); Bibliomap and TRoPHI; IBECS; Scielo; Global Index Medicus - AFRO (includes African Index Medicus); EMRO (includes Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region); LILACS; PAHO (Pan American Health Library); WHOLIS (WHO Library); WPRO (includes Western Pacific Region Index Medicus); IMSEAR, Index Medicus for the South-East Asian Region; IndMED, Indian medical journals; and the Native Health Research Database. We searched clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for any ongoing or planned studies on 17 January 2018 and contacted authors of such studies to obtain further information or eligible data if available.\nFor assistance in identifying ongoing or unpublished studies, we also contacted relevant international organisations and agencies working in food fortification on 9 August 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cluster- or individually randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Interventions included (central/industrial) fortification of maize flour or corn meal with iron alone or with other vitamins and minerals and provided to individuals over 2 years of age (including pregnant and lactating women) from any country.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Trial designs with a comparison group were included to assess the effects of interventions. Trial designs without a control or comparison group (uncontrolled before-and-after studies) were included for completeness but were not considered in assessments of the overall effectiveness of interventions or used to draw conclusions regarding the effects of interventions in the review.\nMain results\nOur search yielded 4529 records. After initial screening of titles and abstracts, we reviewed the full text of 75 studies (80 records). We included 5 studies and excluded 70. All the included studies assessed the effects of providing maize products fortified with iron plus other vitamins and minerals versus unfortified maize flour. No studies compared this intervention to no intervention or looked at the relative effect of flour and products fortified with iron alone (without other vitamins and minerals). Three were randomised trials involving 2610 participants, and two were uncontrolled before-and-after studies involving 849 participants.\nOnly three studies contributed data for the meta-analysis and included children aged 2 to 11.9 years and women. Compared to unfortified maize flour, it is uncertain whether fortifying maize flour or corn meal with iron and other vitamins and minerals has any effect on anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.40; 2 studies; 1027 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or on the risk of iron deficiency (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.15; 2 studies; 1102 participants; very low-certainty evidence), haemoglobin concentration (mean difference (MD) 1.25 g/L, 95% CI −2.36 to 4.86 g/L; 3 studies; 1144 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or ferritin concentrations (MD 0.48 µg/L, 95% CI −0.37 to 1.33 µg/L; 1 study; 584 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nNone of the studies reported on any adverse effects. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be very low based on GRADE, so we are uncertain whether the results reflect the true effect of the intervention. We downgraded evidence due to high risk of selection bias and unclear risk of performance bias in one of two included studies, high heterogeneity and wide CIs crossing the line of no effect for anaemia prevalence and haemoglobin concentration.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is uncertain whether fortifying maize flour with iron and other vitamins and minerals reduces the risk of anaemia or iron deficiency in children aged over 2 years or in adults. Moreover, the evidence is too uncertain to conclude whether iron-fortified maize flour, corn meal or fortified maize flour products have any effect on reducing the risk of anaemia or on improving haemoglobin concentration in the population.\nWe are uncertain whether fortification of maize flour with iron reduces anaemia among the general population, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. No studies reported on any adverse effects.\nPublic organisations funded three of the five included studies, while the private sector gave grants to universities to perform the other two. The presence of industry funding for some of these trials did not appear to positively influence results from these studies.\nThe reduced number of studies, including only two age groups (children and women of reproductive age), as well as the limited number of comparisons (only one out of the four planned) constitute the main limitations of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that had been published up to 17 January 2018." } ]
query-laysum	22415	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a critical condition that is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Aerosolized prostacyclin has been used to improve oxygenation despite the limited evidence available so far.\nThis review was originally published in 2010 and updated in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of aerosolized prostacyclin in adults and children with ARDS.\nSearch methods\nIn this update, we searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 4); MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), ISI BIOSIS Previews, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and three trials registers. We handsearched the reference lists of the latest reviews, randomized and non-randomized trials, and editorials, and cross-checked them with our search of MEDLINE. We contacted the main authors of included studies to request any missed, unreported or ongoing studies. The search was run from inception to 5 May 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. We contacted trial investigators and study authors to retrieve relevant and missing data.\nData collection and analysis\nThree authors independently abstracted data and resolved any disagreements by discussion. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We planned to perform subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of aerosolized prostacyclin in adults and children, and on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of methodological trial components and the risk of random error through trial sequential analysis.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs with 81 participants.\nOne RCT involved 14 critically ill children with ARDS (very low quality of evidence), and one RCT involved 67 critically ill adults (very low quality evidence).\nOnly one RCT (paediatric trial) provided data on mortality and found no difference between intervention and control. However, this trial was eligible for meta-analysis due to a cross-over design.\nWe assessed the benefits and harms of aerosolized prostacyclin. One RCT found no difference in improvement of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio (mean difference (MD) -25.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -60.48 to 9.78; P = 0.16; 67 participants, very low quality evidence).\nThere were no adverse events such as bleeding or organ dysfunction in any of the included trials. Due to the limited number of RCTs, we were unable to perform the prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses or trial sequential analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are unable to tell from our results whether the intervention has an important effect on mortality because the results were too imprecise to rule out a small or no effect. Therefore, no current evidence supports or refutes the routine use of aerosolized prostacyclin for people with ARDS. There is an urgent need for more RCTs.\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": "Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) results in low oxygen levels in the blood and can develop when fluid builds up in the lungs because of inflammation. A direct or indirect injury to the lungs can cause ARDS in children and adults. Such injuries include sepsis (a serious condition where the body responds to infection by injuring to its own tissues and organs), viral infections, burns, massive blood transfusions, multiple trauma, entry of stomach contents into respiratory system, inflammation of the pancreas, inhalation injury, drug overdose and near drowning. ARDS is a major cause of death in critically ill people.\nProstacyclin can be administered as an aerosol to critically ill adults and children with ARDS to increase the blood oxygen levels and improve survival. It is a naturally occurring prostaglandin that relaxes blood vessels, stops blood platelets from clotting (antiplatelet aggregation) and has anti-inflammatory properties in the lungs." } ]
query-laysum	22416	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAlzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. One approach to symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's disease is to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission in the brain by blocking the action of the enzyme responsible for the breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. This can be done by a group of drugs known as cholinesterase inhibitors. Donepezil is a cholinesterase inhibitor.\nThis review is an updated version of a review first published in 1998.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical efficacy and safety of donepezil in people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease; to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of donepezil; and to assess the effect of donepezil on healthcare resource use and costs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement’s Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and a number of other sources on 20 May 2017 to ensure that the search was as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. In addition, we contacted members of the Donepezil Study Group and Eisai Inc.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all double-blind, randomised controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was administered to people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease for 12 weeks or more and its effects compared with those of placebo in a parallel group of patients, or where two different doses of donepezil were compared.\nData collection and analysis\nOne reviewer (JSB) extracted data on cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioural symptoms, global clinical state, quality of life, adverse events, deaths and healthcare resource costs. Where appropriate and possible, we estimated pooled treatment effects. We used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nThirty studies involving 8257 participants met the inclusion criteria of the review, of which 28 studies reported results in sufficient detail for the meta-analyses. Most studies were of six months' duration or less. Only one small trial lasted 52 weeks. The studies tested mainly donepezil capsules at a dose of 5 mg/day or 10 mg/day. Two studies tested a slow-release oral formulation that delivered 23 mg/day. Participants in 21 studies had mild to moderate disease, in five studies moderate to severe, and in four severe disease. Seventeen studies were industry funded or sponsored, four studies were funded independently of industry and for nine studies there was no information on source of funding.\nOur main analysis compared the safety and efficacy of donepezil 10 mg/day with placebo at 24 to 26 weeks of treatment. Thirteen studies contributed data from 3396 participants to this analysis. Eleven of these studies were multicentre studies. Seven studies recruited patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease, two with moderate to severe, and four with severe Alzheimer's disease, with a mean age of about 75 years. Almost all evidence was of moderate quality, downgraded due to study limitations.\nAfter 26 weeks of treatment, donepezil compared with placebo was associated with better outcomes for cognitive function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog, range 0 to 70) (mean difference (MD) -2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -2.02, 1130 participants, 5 studies), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.37, 1757 participants, 7 studies) and the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB, range 0 to 100) (MD 5.92, 95% CI 4.53 to 7.31, 1348 participants, 5 studies). Donepezil was also associated with better function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study activities of daily living score for severe Alzheimer's disease (ADCS-ADL-sev) (MD 1.03, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.85, 733 participants, 3 studies). A higher proportion of participants treated with donepezil experienced improvement on the clinician-rated global impression of change scale (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.39, 1674 participants, 6 studies). There was no difference between donepezil and placebo for behavioural symptoms measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.43 to 0.19, 1035 participants, 4 studies) or by the Behavioural Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease (BEHAVE-AD) scale (MD 0.4, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.08, 194 participants, 1 study). There was also no difference between donepezil and placebo for Quality of Life (QoL) (MD -2.79, 95% CI -8.15 to 2.56, 815 participants, 2 studies).\nParticipants receiving donepezil were more likely to withdraw from the studies before the end of treatment (24% versus 20%, OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.50, 2846 participants, 12 studies) or to experience an adverse event during the studies (72% vs 65%, OR 1.59, 95% 1.31 to 1.95, 2500 participants, 10 studies).\nThere was no evidence of a difference between donepezil and placebo for patient total healthcare resource utilisation.\nThree studies compared donepezil 10 mg/day to donepezil 5 mg/day over 26 weeks. The 5 mg dose was associated with slightly worse cognitive function on the ADAS-Cog, but not on the MMSE or SIB, with slightly better QoL and with fewer adverse events and withdrawals from treatment. Two studies compared donepezil 10 mg/day to donepezil 23 mg/day. There were no differences on efficacy outcomes, but fewer participants on 10 mg/day experienced adverse events or withdrew from treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease treated for periods of 12 or 24 weeks with donepezil experience small benefits in cognitive function, activities of daily living and clinician-rated global clinical state. There is some evidence that use of donepezil is neither more nor less expensive compared with placebo when assessing total healthcare resource costs. Benefits on 23 mg/day were no greater than on 10 mg/day, and benefits on the 10 mg/day dose were marginally larger than on the 5 mg/day dose, but the rates of withdrawal and of adverse events before end of treatment were higher the higher the dose.\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 effects (benefits or harms) does donepezil have on people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease?" } ]
query-laysum	22417	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCaries is one of the most prevalent and preventable conditions worldwide. If identified early enough then non-invasive techniques can be applied, and therefore this review focusses on early caries involving the enamel surface of the tooth. The cornerstone of caries detection and diagnosis is a visual and tactile dental examination, although alternative approaches are available. These include illumination-based devices that could potentially support the dental examination. There are three categories of illumination devices that exploit various methods of application and interpretation, each primarily defined by different wavelengths, optical coherence tomography (OCT), near-infrared (NIR), and fibre-optic technology, which incorporates more recently developed digital fibre optics (FOTI/DIFOTI).\nObjectives\nTo estimate the diagnostic test accuracy of different illumination tests for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries in children or adults. We also planned to explore the following potential sources of heterogeneity: in vitro or in vivo studies with different reference standards; tooth surface (occlusal, proximal, smooth surface, or adjacent to a restoration); single or multiple sites of assessment on a tooth surface; and the prevalence of caries into dentine.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 15 February 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 15 February 2019). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included diagnostic accuracy study designs that compared the use of illumination-based devices with a reference standard (histology, enhanced visual examination with or without radiographs, or operative excavation). These included prospective studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a single index test and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. Both in vitro and in vivo studies of primary and permanent teeth were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that explicitly recruited participants with caries into dentine or frank cavitation. We also excluded studies that artificially created carious lesions and those that used an index test during the excavation of dental caries to ascertain the optimum depth of excavation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardised data extraction form and quality assessment based on QUADAS-2 specific to the clinical context. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy were determined using the bivariate hierarchical method to produce summary points of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence regions. The comparative accuracy of different illumination devices was conducted based on indirect and direct comparisons between methods. Potential sources of heterogeneity were pre-specified and explored visually and more formally through meta-regression.\nMain results\nWe included 24 datasets from 23 studies that evaluated 16,702 tooth surfaces. NIR was evaluated in 6 datasets (673 tooth surfaces), OCT in 10 datasets (1171 tooth surfaces), and FOTI/DIFOTI in 8 datasets (14,858 tooth surfaces). The participant selection domain had the largest number of studies judged at high risk of bias (16 studies). Conversely, for the index test, reference standard, and flow and timing domains the majority of studies were judged to be at low risk of bias (16, 12, and 16 studies respectively). Concerns regarding the applicability of the evidence were judged as high or unclear for all domains. Notably, 14 studies were judged to be of high concern for participant selection, due to selective participant recruitment, a lack of independent examiners, and the use of an in vitro study design. The summary estimate across all the included illumination devices was sensitivity 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.85) and specificity 0.87 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.92), with a diagnostic odds ratio of 21.52 (95% CI 10.89 to 42.48). In a cohort of 1000 tooth surfaces with a prevalence of enamel caries of 57%, this would result in 142 tooth surfaces being classified as disease free when enamel caries was truly present (false negatives), and 56 tooth surfaces being classified as diseased in the absence of enamel caries (false positives). A formal comparison of the accuracy according to device type indicated a difference in sensitivity and/or specificity (Chi2(4) = 34.17, P < 0.01). Further analysis indicated a difference in the sensitivity of the different devices (Chi2(2) = 31.24, P < 0.01) with a higher sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) for OCT compared to NIR 0.58 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.68) and FOTI/DIFOTI 0.47 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.59), but no meaningful difference in specificity (Chi2(2) = 3.47, P = 0.18).\nIn light of these results, we planned to formally assess potential sources of heterogeneity according to device type, but due to the limited number of studies for each device type we were unable to do so. For interpretation, we presented the coupled forest plots for each device type according to the potential source of heterogeneity.\nWe rated the certainty of the evidence as low and downgraded two levels in total due to avoidable and unavoidable study limitations in the design and conduct of studies, indirectness arising from the in vitro studies, and imprecision of the estimates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOf the devices evaluated, OCT appears to show the most potential, with superior sensitivity to NIR and fibre-optic devices. Its benefit lies as an add-on tool to support the conventional oral examination to confirm borderline cases in cases of clinical uncertainty. OCT is not currently available to the general dental practitioner, and so further research and development are necessary. FOTI and NIR are more readily available and easy to use; however, they show limitations in their ability to detect enamel caries but may be considered successful in the identification of sound teeth.\nFuture studies should strive to avoid research waste by ensuring that recruitment is conducted in such a way as to minimise selection bias and that studies are clearly and comprehensively reported. In terms of applicability, any future studies should be undertaken in a clinical setting that is reflective of the complexities encountered in caries assessment within the oral cavity.\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": "We only included studies that assessed healthy teeth or those that were thought to have early tooth decay, as teeth with deep tooth decay would be easier to identify. There were some shortcomings in how the studies were conducted, and this may have resulted in the illumination devices appearing more accurate than they really are, increasing the number of correct classifications (green rectangles in the diagram). Many studies evaluated the performance of the devices on extracted teeth, which is very different from when the devices are used inside a person's mouth, where is difficult to see clearly and where teeth may be stained or have a covering of plaque." } ]
query-laysum	22418	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCarpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common compressive neuropathy of the upper extremity. It is caused by increased pressure on the median nerve between the transverse carpal ligament and the carpal bones. Surgical treatment consists of the release of the nerve by cutting the transverse carpal ligament. This can be done either with an open approach or endoscopically.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of the endoscopic techniques of carpal tunnel release compared to any other surgical intervention for the treatment of CTS. More specifically, to evaluate the relative impact of endoscopic techniques in relieving symptoms, producing functional recovery (return to work and return to daily activities) and reducing complication rates.\nSearch methods\nThis review fully incorporates the results of searches conducted up to 5 November 2012, when we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. There were no language restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted trial authors. We also searched trial registers for ongoing trials. We performed a preliminary screen of searches to November 2013 to identify any additional recent publications.\nSelection criteria\nWe included any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) with any other surgical intervention for the treatment of CTS.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nTwenty-eight studies (2586 hands) were included. Twenty-three studies compared ECTR to standard open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), five studies compared ECTR with OCTR using a modified incision, and two studies used a three-arm design to compare ECTR, standard OCTR and modified OCTR.\nAt short-term follow-up (three months or less), only one study provided data for overall improvement. We found no differences on the Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) (scale zero to five) (five studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.13, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.21) or on the Functional Status Scale (FSS) (scale zero to five) (five studies, SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.14) within three months postoperatively between ECTR and OCTR. Pain scores favoured ECTR over conventional OCTR (two studies, SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.18). No difference was found between ECTR and OCTR (standard and modified) when pain was assessed on non-continuous dichotomous scales (five studies, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.45). Also, no difference was found in numbness (five studies, RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.71). Grip strength was increased after ECTR when compared with OCTR (six studies, SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of 4 kg (95% CI 1 to 6.9 kg) when compared with OCTR, which is probably not clinically significant.\nIn the long term (more than three months postoperatively) there was no significant difference in overall improvement between ECTR and OCTR (four studies, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14). SSS and FSS were also similar in both treatment groups (two studies, MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.22 for SSS and MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.16 for FSS). ECTR and OCTR did not differ in the long term in pain (six studies, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.38) or in numbness (four studies, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.35). Results from grip strength testing favoured ECTR (two studies, SMD 1.13, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.71), corresponding to an MD of 11 kg (95% CI 6.2 to 18.81). Participants treated with ECTR returned to work or daily activities eight days earlier than participants treated with OCTR (four studies, MD -8.10 days, 95% CI -14.28 to -1.92 days).\nBoth treatments were equally safe with only a few reports of major complications (mainly with complex regional pain syndrome) (15 studies, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.64).\nECTR resulted in a significantly lower rate of minor complications (18 studies, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.81), corresponding to a 45% relative drop in the probability of complications (95% CI 62% to 19%). ECTR more frequently resulted in transient nerve problems (ie, neurapraxia, numbness, and paraesthesiae), while OCTR had more wound problems (ie, infection, hypertrophic scarring, and scar tenderness). ECTR was safer than OCTR when the total number of complications were assessed (20 studies, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 90) representing a relative drop in the probability by 40% (95% CI 60% to 10%).\nRates of recurrence of symptoms and the need for repeated surgery were comparable between ECTR and OCTR groups.\nThe overall risk of bias in studies that contribute data to these results is rather high; fewer than 25% of the included studies had adequate allocation concealment, generation of allocation sequence or blinding of the outcome assessor.\nThe quality of evidence in this review may be considered as generally low. Five of the studies were presented only as abstracts, with insufficient information to judge their risk of bias. In selection bias, attrition bias or other bias (baseline differences and financial conflict of interest) we could not reach a safe judgement regarding a high or low risk of bias. Blinding of participants is impossible due to the nature of interventions.\nWe identified three further potentially eligible studies upon updating searches just prior to publication. These compared ECTR with OCTR (two studies) or mini-open carpal tunnel release (one study) and will be fully assessed when we update the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this review, with support from low quality evidence only, OCTR and ECTR for carpal tunnel release are about as effective as each other in relieving symptoms and improving functional status, although there may be a functionally significant benefit of ECTR over OCTR in improvement in grip strength. ECTR appears to be associated with fewer minor complications compared to OCTR, but we found no difference in the rates of major complications. Return to work is faster after endoscopic release, by eight days on average. Conclusions from this review are limited by the high risk of bias, statistical imprecision and inconsistency in the included studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found 28 studies, involving 2586 people, that were suitable for the review. We considered results at less than three months and more than three months after surgery." } ]
query-laysum	22419	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the WHO cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.\nA previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on NSAIDs, updates the evidence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to March 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nThree studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.\nNone of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.\nOur GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The quality of the evidence was very low. Very low-quality evidence means that we are very uncertain about the impact of paracetamol for treating cancer pain. We do not know whether using paracetamol alone, or in combination with an opioid such as codeine or morphine, is worthwhile." } ]
query-laysum	22420	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nContraceptive implants are one of the most effective contraceptive methods, providing a long duration of pregnancy protection and a high safety profile. Hence this method is suitable for optimizing the interpregnancy interval, especially for women undergoing abortion.\nWomen who have had abortions are at high risk of rapid repeat pregnancies. Provision of effective contraception at the time of an abortion visit can be a key strategy to increase access and uptake of contraception. A review of the evidence was needed to evaluate progestin-releasing implants for immediate use at the time of abortion, including whether immediate placement impacts the effectiveness of medical abortion, which relies on antiprogestogens.\nObjectives\nTo compare contraceptive implant initiation rates, contraceptive effectiveness, and adverse outcomes associated with immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implants following abortion.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status up to September 2019, with an update search in March 2021. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health (Ovid), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We examined the reference lists of pertinent articles to identify other studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implant for contraception following abortion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard procedures recommended by Cochrane. To identify potentially relevant studies, two review authors (JS, LS) independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the search results, assessed trials for risk of bias, and extracted data. We computed the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous variables.\nMain results\nWe found three RCTs including a total of 1162 women. Our GRADE assessment of the overall certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.\nUtilization rate at six months may be slightly higher for immediate compared with delayed insertion (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 3 RCTs; 1103 women; I2 = 62%; low certainty evidence). Unintended pregnancy within six months after abortion was probably lower with immediate insertion compared with delayed insertion (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77; 3 RCTs; 1029 women; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Immediate insertion of contraceptive implants probably improves the initiation rate compared to delayed insertion following medical abortion (RR 1.26 for medical abortion, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.32; 2 RCTs; 1014 women; I2 = 89%; moderate certainty evidence) and may also improve initiation following surgical abortion (RR 2.32 for surgical abortion, 95% CI 1.79 to 3.01; 1 RCT; 148 women; I2 = not applicable; low certainty evidence). We did not pool results for the implant initiation outcome over both abortion types because of very high statistical heterogeneity.\nFor medical termination of pregnancy, we found there is probably little or no difference between immediate and delayed insertion in overall failure of medical abortion (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.40; 2 RCTs; 1001 women; I2 = 68%;moderate certainty evidence).\nThere may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion on rates of abnormal bleeding at one month after abortion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.14; 1 RCT; 462 women; I2 = not applicable; low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nProvision of progestin-releasing implants concurrently with abortifacient agents likely has little or no negative impact on overall failure rate of medical abortion. Immediate insertion probably improves the initiation rate of contraceptive implant, as well as unintended pregnancy rate within six months after abortion, compared to delayed insertion. There may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion approaches in bleeding adverse effects at one month after abortion.\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 compared the initiation rate, effectiveness, and side effects of insertion of a contraceptive implant (implant for birth control) at the same visit as an abortion versus delayed insertion at a follow-up visit." } ]
query-laysum	22421	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAmalgam is a common filling material for posterior teeth, as with any restoration amalgams have a finite life-span. Traditionally replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective amalgam restorations, however, repair offers an alternative more conservative approach where restorations are only partially defective. Repairing a restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement. Repair of amalgam restorations is often more conservative of the tooth structure than replacement.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of replacing (with amalgam) versus repair (with amalgam) in the management of defective amalgam dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth.\nSearch methods\nFor the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 5 August 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 August 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 August 2013); BIOSIS via Web of Knowledge (1969 to 5 August 2013); Web of Science (1945 to 5 August 2013) and OpenGrey (to 5 August 2013). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nTrials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trial (including split-mouth studies), involving replacement and repair of amalgam restorations in adults with a defective restoration in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.\nMain results\nThe search strategy retrieved 201 potentially eligible studies after de-duplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts, full texts of the relevant studies were retrieved but none of these met the inclusion criteria of the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, distress and anxiety, time and costs.\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": "Fillings are used as part of general dental treatment to rebuild teeth after a patient develops tooth decay or damages the surface of their tooth in some way.\nFillings also help to prevent further damage occurring (this can be through further tooth decay under the filling or from impact), but they must be maintained to ensure that the fillings continue to protect what is left of the original tooth. As with any filling material these fillings have a limited life-span.\nTraditionally faulty fillings have been replaced, however this approach may involve the loss of further bits of tooth as the cavity is emptied and re-filled.\nAn alternative approach is to repair the faulty filling. Repairing fillings may take less time, and as some repairs can be performed without the need to numb the area (local anaesthesia), a repair may be less distressing for the patient when compared with the option of replacing the filling. Issues such as pain, anxiety, distress, time and cost are important considerations for dentists as well as patients.\nThis review aims to compare whether it is better to replace or repair amalgam fillings. The evidence for repair or replacement of resin composite fillings is contained in a separate review." } ]
query-laysum	22422	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSpecific diagnostic tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and resulting COVID-19 disease are not always available and take time to obtain results. Routine laboratory markers such as white blood cell count, measures of anticoagulation, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin, are used to assess the clinical status of a patient. These laboratory tests may be useful for the triage of people with potential COVID-19 to prioritize them for different levels of treatment, especially in situations where time and resources are limited.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19.\nSearch methods\nOn 4 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included both case-control designs and consecutive series of patients that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. The reference standard could be reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) alone; RT-PCR plus clinical expertise or and imaging; repeated RT-PCR several days apart or from different samples; WHO and other case definitions; and any other reference standard used by the study authors.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from each included study. They also assessed the methodological quality of the studies, using QUADAS-2. We used the 'NLMIXED' procedure in SAS 9.4 for the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) meta-analyses of tests for which we included four or more studies. To facilitate interpretation of results, for each meta-analysis we estimated summary sensitivity at the points on the SROC curve that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies.\nMain results\nWe included 21 studies in this review, including 14,126 COVID-19 patients and 56,585 non-COVID-19 patients in total. Studies evaluated a total of 67 different laboratory tests. Although we were interested in the diagnotic accuracy of routine tests for COVID-19, the included studies used detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection through RT-PCR as reference standard. There was considerable heterogeneity between tests, threshold values and the settings in which they were applied. For some tests a positive result was defined as a decrease compared to normal vaues, for other tests a positive result was defined as an increase, and for some tests both increase and decrease may have indicated test positivity. None of the studies had either low risk of bias on all domains or low concerns for applicability for all domains. Only three of the tests evaluated had a summary sensitivity and specificity over 50%. These were: increase in interleukin-6, increase in C-reactive protein and lymphocyte count decrease.\nBlood count\nEleven studies evaluated a decrease in white blood cell count, with a median specificity of 93% and a summary sensitivity of 25% (95% CI 8.0% to 27%; very low-certainty evidence). The 15 studies that evaluated an increase in white blood cell count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. Four studies evaluated a decrease in neutrophil count. Their median specificity was 93%, corresponding to a summary sensitivity of 10% (95% CI 1.0% to 56%; low-certainty evidence). The 11 studies that evaluated an increase in neutrophil count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil percentage (4 studies) was 59% (95% CI 1.0% to 100%) at median specificity (38%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in monocyte count (4 studies) was 13% (95% CI 6.0% to 26%) at median specificity (73%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count (13 studies) was 64% (95% CI 28% to 89%) at median specificity (53%; low-certainty evidence). Four studies that evaluated a decrease in lymphocyte percentage showed a lower median specificity and lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of a decrease in platelets (4 studies) was 19% (95% CI 10% to 32%) at median specificity (88%; low-certainty evidence).\nLiver function tests\nThe summary sensitivity of an increase in alanine aminotransferase (9 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in aspartate aminotransferase (7 studies) was 29% (95% CI 17% to 45%) at median specificity (81%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in albumin (4 studies) was 21% (95% CI 3% to 67%) at median specificity (66%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in total bilirubin (4 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3.0% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; very low-certainty evidence).\nMarkers of inflammation\nThe summary sensitivity of an increase in CRP (14 studies) was 66% (95% CI 55% to 75%) at median specificity (44%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in procalcitonin (6 studies) was 3% (95% CI 1% to 19%) at median specificity (86%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in IL-6 (four studies) was 73% (95% CI 36% to 93%) at median specificity (58%) (very low-certainty evidence).\nOther biomarkers\nThe summary sensitivity of an increase in creatine kinase (5 studies) was 11% (95% CI 6% to 19%) at median specificity (94%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in serum creatinine (four studies) was 7% (95% CI 1% to 37%) at median specificity (91%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in lactate dehydrogenase (4 studies) was 25% (95% CI 15% to 38%) at median specificity (72%; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough these tests give an indication about the general health status of patients and some tests may be specific indicators for inflammatory processes, none of the tests we investigated are useful for accurately ruling in or ruling out COVID-19 on their own. Studies were done in specific hospitalized populations, and future studies should consider non-hospital settings to evaluate how these tests would perform in people with milder symptoms.\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 21 studies that looked at 67 different routine laboratory tests for COVID-19. Most of the studies looked at how accurately these tests diagnosed infection with the virus causing COVID-19. Four studies included both children and adults, 16 included only adults and one study only children. Seventeen studies were done in China, and one each in Iran, Italy, Taiwan and the USA. All studies took place in hospitals, except one that used samples from a database. Most studies used RT-PCR to confirm COVID-19 diagnosis.\nAccuracy of tests is most often reported using ‘sensitivity’ and ‘specificity’. Sensitivity is the proportion of people with COVID-19 correctly detected by the test; specificity is the proportion of people without COVID-19 who are correctly identified by the test. The nearer sensitivity and specificity are to 100%, the better the test. A test to prioritize people for treatment would require a high sensitivity of more than 80%.\nWhere four or more studies evaluated a particular test, we pooled their results and analyzed them together. Our analyses showed that only three of the tests had both sensitivity and specificity over 50%. Two of these were markers for general inflammation (increases in interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein). The third was for lymphocyte count decrease. Lymphocytes are a type of white blood cell where a low count might indicate infection." } ]
query-laysum	22423	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPhysical restraints, such as bedrails, belts in chairs or beds, and fixed tables, are commonly used for older people in general hospital settings. Reasons given for using physical restraints are to prevent falls and fall-related injuries, to control challenging behavior (such as agitation or wandering), and to ensure the delivery of medical treatments. Clear evidence of their effectiveness is lacking, and potential harms are recognised, including injuries associated with the use of physical restraints and a negative impact on people's well-being. There are widespread recommendations that their use should be reduced or eliminated.\nObjectives\nTo assess the best evidence for the effects and safety of interventions aimed at preventing and reducing the use of physical restraint of older people in general hospital settings.\nTo describe the content, components and processes of these interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 20 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that investigated the effects of interventions that aimed to prevent or reduce the use of physical restraints in general hospital settings. Eligible settings were acute care and rehabilitation wards. We excluded emergency departments, intensive care and psychiatric units, as well as the use of restrictive measures for penal reasons (e.g. prisoners in general medical wards). We included studies with a mean age of study participants of at least 65 years. Control groups received usual care or active control interventions that were ineligible for inclusion as experimental interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of all included studies. Data were unsuitable for meta-analysis, and we reported results narratively. We used GRADE methods to describe our certainty in the results.\nMain results\nWe included four studies: two randomised controlled trials (one individually-randomised, parallel-group trial and one clustered, stepped-wedge trial) and two controlled clinical trials (both with a clustered design). One study was conducted in general medical wards in Canada and three studies were conducted in rehabilitation hospitals in Hong Kong. A total of 1709 participants were included in three studies; in the fourth study the number of participants was not reported. The mean age ranged from 67 years to 84 years. The duration of follow-up covered the period of patients' hospitalisation in one study (21 days average length of stay) and ranged from 4 to 11 months in the other studies. The definition of physical restraints differed slightly, and one study did not include bedrails.\nThree studies investigated organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy to reduce physical restraints. The theoretical approach of the interventions and the content of the educational components was comparable across studies. The fourth study investigated the use of pressure sensors for participants with an increased falls risk, which gave an alarm if the participant left the bed or chair. Control groups in all studies received usual care.\nThree studies were at high risk of selection bias and risk of detection bias was unclear in all studies.\nBecause of very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy on our primary efficacy outcome: the use of physical restraints in general hospital settings. One study found an increase in the number of participants with at least one physical restraint in the intervention and control groups, one study found a small reduction in both groups, and in the third study (the stepped-wedge study), the number of participants with at least one physical restraint decreased in all clusters after implementation of the intervention but no detailed information was reported. For the use of bed or chair pressure sensor alarms for people with an increased fall risk, we found moderate-certainty evidence of little to no effect of the intervention on the number of participants with at least one physical restraint compared with usual care. None of the studies systematically assessed adverse events related to use of physical restraint use, e.g. direct injuries, or reported such events.\nWe are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy on the number of participants with at least one fall (very low-certainty evidence), and there was no evidence that organisational interventions or the use of bed or chair pressure sensor alarms for people with an increased fall risk reduce the number of falls (low-certainty evidence from one study each). None of the studies reported fall-related injuries. We found low-certainty evidence that organisational interventions may result in little to no difference in functioning (including mobility), and moderate-certainty evidence that the use of bed or chair pressure sensor alarms has little to no effect on mobility. We are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions on the use of psychotropic medication; one study found no difference in the prescription of psychotropic medication. We are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions on nurses' attitudes and knowledge about the use of physical restraints (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy can reduce physical restraints in general hospital settings. The use of pressure sensor alarms in beds or chairs for people with an increased fall risk has probably little to no effect on the use of physical restraints. Because of the small number of studies and the study limitations, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further research on effective strategies to implement a least-restraint policy and to overcome barriers to physical restraint reduction in general hospital settings is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Physical restraints are devices which reduce a person's freedom to move. These can be bedrails, belts in chairs or beds, and fixed tables, which prevent people from getting out of bed or a chair, or mitts which prevent someone using their hands freely. In some countries, physical restraints are used quite commonly for older people in general hospital wards. A main reason for this is to try to prevent falls and fall-related injuries, or to prevent people from removing drips or tubes. Physical restraints are also used as a response to behaviours that make care more challenging for health care staff and may be risky, such as people behaving in an agitated or aggressive way or wandering unobserved around the ward. They are most often used in the hospital care of older people with mobility problems or cognitive impairment due to dementia or delirium.\nIt is not clear whether physical restraint use is effective at preventing falls or the removal of tubes, but their use may increase feelings of fear, anger and discomfort and decrease well-being. Other unintended consequences of using physical restraints include worsened mobility, increased risk of pressure ulcers and incontinence, and injuries directly related to the use of physical restraints. Therefore, physical restraints may have a negative impact on the recovery and rehabilitation of older people in hospital. Guidelines recommend that their use is reduced or stopped, and in some countries they are illegal in most circumstances. Interventions for preventing and reducing the use of physical restraints typically include education for staff and promotion of the use of other care strategies. Sometimes they may involve providing alternative devices which are thought to be less restrictive." } ]
query-laysum	22424	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPsoriasis is an inflammatory skin disease that presents with itching, red, scaling plaques; its worsening has been associated with obesity, drinking, smoking, lack of sleep, and a sedentary lifestyle. Lifestyle changes may improve psoriasis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of lifestyle changes for psoriasis, including weight reduction, alcohol abstinence, smoking cessation, dietary modification, exercise, and other lifestyle change interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to July 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Airiti Library, and five trials registers up to July 2018. We checked the references of included trials for further relevant trials, and we asked the authors of the included trials if they were aware of any relevant unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lifestyle changes (either alone or in combination) for treating psoriasis in people diagnosed by a healthcare professional. Treatment had to be given for at least 12 weeks. Eligible comparisons were no lifestyle changes or another active intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were 'Severity of psoriasis' and 'Adherence to the intervention'. Secondary outcomes were 'Quality of life', 'Time to relapse', and 'Reduction in comorbidities'. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 10 RCTs with 1163 participants (mean age: 43 to 61 years; 656 men and 478 women were reported). Six trials examined the effects of dietary intervention (low-calorie diet) in 499 obese participants (mean age: 44.3 to 61 years; where reported, 395 had moderate-to-severe psoriasis). One trial assessed a combined dietary intervention and exercise programme in 303 obese participants with moderate-to-severe psoriasis who had started a systemic therapy for psoriasis and had not achieved clearance after four weeks of continuous treatment (median age: 53 years). Another trial assessed a walking exercise and continuous health education in 200 participants (mean age: 43.1 years, severity not reported). Finally, two trials included education programmes promoting a healthy lifestyle in 161 participants (aged 18 to 78 years), with one trial on mild psoriasis and the other trial not reporting severity.\nComparisons included information only; no intervention; medical therapy alone; and usual care (such as continuing healthy eating).\nAll trials were conducted in hospitals and treated participants for between 12 weeks and three years. One trial did not report the treatment period. Seven trials measured the outcomes at the end of treatment and there was no additional follow-up. In two trials, there was follow-up after the treatment ended. Five trials had a high risk of performance bias, and four trials had a high risk of attrition bias.\nWe found no trials assessing interventions for alcohol abstinence or smoking cessation. No trials assessed time to relapse. Only two trials assessed adverse events; in one trial these were caused by the add-on therapy ciclosporin (given in both groups). The trial comparing two dietary interventions to a no-treatment group observed no adverse events.\nThe results presented in this abstract are based on trials of obese participants.\nOutcomes for dietary interventions versus usual care were measured 24 weeks to six months from baseline. Compared to usual care, dietary intervention (strict caloric restriction) may lead to 75% or greater improvement from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 2.58; 2 trials, 323 participants; low-quality evidence). Adherence to the intervention may be greater with the dietary intervention than usual care, but the 95% CI indicates that the dietary intervention might also make little or no difference (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.09; 2 trials, 105 participants; low-quality evidence). Dietary intervention probably achieves a greater improvement in dermatology quality-of-life index (DLQI) score compared to usual care (MD −12.20, 95% CI −13.92 to −10.48; 1 trial, 36 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and probably reduces the BMI compared to usual care (MD −4.65, 95% CI −5.93 to −3.36; 2 trials, 78 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nOutcomes for dietary interventions plus exercise programme were measured 16 weeks from baseline and are based on one trial (303 participants). Compared to information only (on reducing weight to improve psoriasis), combined dietary intervention and exercise programme (dietetic plan and physical activities) probably improves psoriasis severity, but the 95% CI indicates that the intervention might make little or no difference (PASI 75: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.98). This combined intervention probably results in a greater reduction in BMI (median change −1.10 kg/m², P = 0.002), but there is probably no difference in adherence (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.01; 137/151 and 145/152 participants adhered in the treatment and control group, respectively). There were no data on quality of life. These outcomes are based on moderate-quality evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDietary intervention may reduce the severity of psoriasis (low-quality evidence) and probably improves quality of life and reduces BMI (moderate-quality evidence) in obese people when compared with usual care, while combined dietary intervention and exercise programme probably improves psoriasis severity and BMI when compared with information only (moderate-quality evidence). None of the trials measured quality of life.\nWe did not detect a clear difference in treatment adherence between those in the combined dietary intervention and exercise programme group and those given information only (moderate-quality evidence). Adherence may be improved through dietary intervention compared with usual care (low-quality evidence). Participants generally adhered well to the lifestyle interventions assessed in the review.\nNo trials assessed the time to relapse. Trial limitations included unblinded participants and high dropout rate.\nFuture trials should reduce dropouts and include comprehensive outcome measures; they should examine whether dietary intervention with or without an exercise programme is effective in non-obese people with psoriasis, whether an additional exercise programme is more effective than dietary intervention alone, whether the time to relapse prolongs in people who receive dietary intervention with or without exercise programme, and whether smoking cessation and alcohol abstinence are effective in treating psoriasis.\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 following results are based on obese participants and compare lifestyle change interventions (low-calorie diet) to usual care. A low-calorie diet may reduce the severity of psoriasis (when assessed as the proportion of participants achieving at least 75% improvement from the start of treatment in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75), a widely used tool for the measurement of psoriasis severity) (low-quality evidence) and probably improves quality of life (moderate-quality evidence). Participants on a low-calorie diet may be more likely to stick to treatment (treatment adherence), but treatment effects vary so it is possible that it may make little or no difference (low-quality evidence). A low-calorie diet probably improves BMI (body mass index: a healthy weight calculator) (moderate-quality evidence). The trials did not say how long they treated participants before they stopped dieting (time to relapse).\nThe following results are based on obese participants and compare lifestyle change interventions (low-calorie diet plus an exercise programme) to weight-loss information aimed at improving psoriasis. A low-calorie diet plus an exercise programme probably results in a greater reduction in the severity of psoriasis (based on PASI 75), but the effects of this treatment vary, so it is possible that it may make little or no difference. There is probably no difference in treatment adherence between the two groups; however, a low-calorie diet plus exercise programme probably improves BMI reduction (all outcomes based on moderate-quality evidence). Trials did not report quality of life or time to relapse.\nOnly two trials in this review assessed side effects. In one trial side effects were caused by an additional therapy given to both groups of participants (they were not caused by the dietary treatment). The other trial, which compared two dietary treatments to no treatment, did not observe any side effects. Generally, participants complied with the assessed lifestyle changes successfully.\nWe found no trials on alcohol abstinence or smoking cessation." } ]
query-laysum	22425	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common injury, mainly affecting young, physically active individuals. The injury is characterised by joint instability, leading to decreased activity, which can lead to poor knee-related quality of life. It is also associated with increased risk of secondary osteoarthritis of the knee. It is unclear whether stabilising the knee surgically via ACL reconstruction produces a better overall outcome than non-surgical (conservative) treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of surgical versus conservative interventions for treating ACL injuries.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (18 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to January Week 1 2016), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (18 January 2016), EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2016), trial registers (February 2016) and reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared the use of surgical and conservative interventions in participants with an ACL rupture. We included any trial that evaluated surgery for ACL reconstruction using any method of reconstruction, type of reconstruction technique, graft fixation or type of graft.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts for potentially eligible studies, for which we then obtained full-text reports. Two authors then independently confirmed eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified one study in which 141 young, active adults with acute ACL injury were randomised to either ACL reconstruction followed by structured rehabilitation (results reported for 62 participants) or conservative treatment comprising structured rehabilitation alone (results reported for 59 participants). Built into the study design was a formal option for subsequent (delayed) ACL reconstruction in the conservative treatment group, if the participant requested surgery and met pre-specified criteria.\nThis study was deemed at low risk of selection and reporting biases, at high risk of performance and detection biases because of the lack of blinding and at unclear risk of attrition bias because of an imbalance in the post-randomisation exclusions. According to GRADE methodology, the overall quality of the evidence was low across different outcomes.\nThis study identified no difference in subjective knee score (measured using the average score on four of the five sub-scales of the KOOS score (range from 0 (extreme symptoms) to 100 (no symptoms)) between ACL reconstruction and conservative treatment at two years (difference in KOOS-4 change from baseline scores: MD -0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.78 to 6.38; N = 121 participants; low-quality evidence), or at five years (difference in KOOS-4 final scores: MD -2.0, 95% CI -8.27 to 4.27; N = 120 participants; low-quality evidence). The total number of participants incurring one or more complications in each group was not reported; serious events reported in the surgery group were predominantly surgery-related, while those in conservative treatment group were predominantly knee instability. There were also incomplete data for total participants with treatment failure, including subsequent surgery. In the surgical group at two years, there was low-quality evidence of far fewer ACL-related treatment failures, when defined as either graft rupture or subsequent ACL reconstruction. This result is dominated by the uptake by 39% (23/59) of the participants in the conservative treatment group of ACL reconstruction for knee instability at two years and by 51% (30/59) of the participants at five years. There was low-quality evidence of little difference between the two groups in participants who had undergone meniscal surgery at anytime up to five years. There was low-quality evidence of no clinically important between-group differences in SF-36 physical component scores at two years. There was low-quality evidence of a higher return to the same or greater level of sport activity at two years in the ACL reconstruction group, but the wide 95% CI also included the potential for a higher return in the conservative treatment group. Based on an illustrative return to sport activities of 382 per 1000 conservatively treated patients, this amounts to an extra 84 returns per 1000 ACL-reconstruction patients (95% CI 84 fewer to 348 more). There was very low-quality evidence of a higher incidence of radiographically-detected osteoarthritis in the surgery group (19/58 (35%) versus 10/55 (18%)).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor adults with acute ACL injuries, we found low-quality evidence that there was no difference between surgical management (ACL reconstruction followed by structured rehabilitation) and conservative treatment (structured rehabilitation only) in patient-reported outcomes of knee function at two and five years after injury. However, these findings need to be viewed in the context that many participants with an ACL rupture remained symptomatic following rehabilitation and later opted for ACL reconstruction surgery. Further research, including the two identified ongoing trials, will help to address the limitations in the current evidence, which is from one small trial in a young, active, adult population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The quality of the evidence was limited by the availability of data from only one study. The study was also at high risk of bias because the clinicians and participants were not blinded to their treatment. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low, which means that we are uncertain of the study findings and further research may provide evidence that could change our conclusions." } ]
query-laysum	22426	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCataract is the leading cause of world blindness. The only available treatment for cataract is surgery. Surgery requires highly-trained individuals with expensive operating facilities. Where these are not available, patients go untreated. A form of treatment that did not involve surgery would be a useful alternative for people with symptomatic cataract who are unable or unwilling to undergo surgery. If an eye drop existed that could reverse or even prevent progression of cataract, then this would be a useful additional treatment option.\nCataract tends to result from oxidative stress. The protein, L-carnosine, is known to have an antioxidant effect on the cataractous lens, so biochemically there is sound logic for exploring L-carnosine as an agent to reverse or even prevent progression of cataract. When applied as an eye drop, L-carnosine cannot penetrate the eye. However, when applied to the surface of the eye, N-acetylcarnosine (NAC) penetrates the cornea into the front chamber of the eye (near to where the cataract is), where it is metabolised into L-carnosine. Hence, it is possible that use of NAC eye drops may reverse or even prevent progression of cataract, thereby improving vision and quality of life.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of NAC drops to prevent or reverse the progression of cataract.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (January 1985 to June 2016), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to June 2016), 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 28 June 2016. We handsearched the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS) meetings from 2005 until September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomized or quasi-randomised controlled trials where NAC was compared to control in people with age-related cataract.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified two potentially eligible studies from Russia and the United States. One study was split into two arms: the first arm ran for six months, with two-monthly follow-up; the second arm ran for two years with six-monthly follow-up. The other study ran for four months with a data collection point at the start and end of the study only. A total of 114 people were enrolled in these studies. The ages ranged from 55 to 80 years.\nWe were unable to obtain sufficient information to reliably determine how both these studies were designed and conducted. We have contacted the author of these studies, but have not yet received a reply. Therefore, these studies are assigned as ‘awaiting classification’ in the review until sufficient information can be obtained from the authors.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no convincing evidence that NAC reverses cataract, nor prevents progression of cataract (defined as a change in cataract appearance either for the better or for the worse). Future studies should be randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials with standardised quality of life outcomes and validated outcome measures in terms of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and glare, and large enough to detect adverse effects.\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 Cochrane researchers found two potentially relevant studies. The studies compared NAC eye drops with placebo or no treatment. These studies were from Russia and the United States and were conducted by the same research group.The Cochrane researchers were unable to find out enough information about these studies to include in the review. These studies are assigned as ‘awaiting classification’ in the review until sufficient information can be obtained from the authors." } ]
query-laysum	22427	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSeveral types of pressure sources, including underwater bubble devices, mechanical ventilators, and the Infant Flow Driver, are used for providing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to preterm infants with respiratory distress. It is unclear whether the use of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources is associated with lower rates of CPAP treatment failure, or mortality and other morbidity.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources (mechanical ventilators or Infant Flow Driver) for reducing treatment failure and associated morbidity and mortality in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2023, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1946 to 6 January 2023), Embase (1974 to 6 January 2023), Maternity & Infant Care Database (1971 to 6 January 2023), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 6 January 2023). We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing bubble CPAP with other pressure sources (mechanical ventilators or Infant Flow Driver) for the delivery of nasal CPAP to preterm infants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for effects on treatment failure, all-cause mortality, neurodevelopmental impairment, pneumothorax, moderate-severe nasal trauma, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia.\nMain results\nWe included 15 trials involving a total of 1437 infants. All trials were small (median number of participants 88). The methods used to generate the randomisation sequence and ensure allocation concealment were unclear in about half of the trial reports. Lack of measures to blind caregivers or investigators was a potential source of bias in all of the included trials. The trials took place during the past 25 years in care facilities internationally, predominantly in India (five trials) and Iran (four trials). The studied pressure sources were commercially available bubble CPAP devices versus a variety of mechanical ventilator (11 trials) or Infant Flow Driver (4 trials) devices.\nMeta-analyses suggest that the use of bubble CPAP compared with mechanical ventilator or Infant Flow Driver CPAP may reduce the rate of treatment failure (RR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.95; (I² = 31%); RD −0.05, 95% CI −0.10 to −0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 20, 95% CI 10 to 100; 13 trials, 1230 infants; low certainty evidence). The type of pressure source may not affect mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36 (I² = 0%); RD −0.01, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.02; 10 trials, 1189 infants; low certainty evidence). No data were available on neurodevelopmental impairment. Meta-analysis suggests that the pressure source may not affect the risk of pneumothorax (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.34 (I² = 0%); RD −0.01, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.01; 14 trials, 1340 infants; low certainty evidence). Bubble CPAP likely increases the risk of moderate-severe nasal injury (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.82 (I² = 17%); RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 14, 95% CI 9 to 33; 8 trials, 753 infants; moderate certainty evidence). The pressure source may not affect the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.10 (I² = 0%); RD −0.04, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.01; 7 trials, 603 infants; low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the low level of certainty about the effects of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources on the risk of treatment failure and most associated morbidity and mortality for preterm infants, further large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform context- and setting-relevant policy and practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Combined analyses showed that using bubble CPAP rather than ventilator or Infant Flow Driver CPAP may reduce the risk of CPAP treatment failure, but that bubble CPAP may not affect the risk of death or other complications of prematurity. Bubble CPAP likely increases the risk of moderate-severe nasal injury. None of the included studies looked at effects on disability or other developmental outcomes." } ]
query-laysum	22428	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMultiple sclerosis (MS) is one of the most prevalent diseases of the central nervous system with recent prevalence estimates indicating that MS directly affects 2.3 million people worldwide. Fall rates of 56% have been reported among people with MS in a recent meta-analysis. Clinical guidelines do not outline an evidence-based approach to falls interventions in MS. There is a need for synthesised information regarding the effectiveness of falls prevention interventions in MS.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce falls in people with MS. Specific objectives included comparing: (1) falls prevention interventions to controls and; (2) different types of falls prevention interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Trials Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2018 Issue 9); MEDLINE (PubMed) (1966 to 12 September 2018); Embase (EMBASE.com) (1974 to 12 September 2018); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost) (1981 to 12 September 2018); Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (Bireme) (1982 to 12 September 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; PsycINFO (1806 to 12 September 2018; and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (1999 to 12 September 2018).\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials of interventions to reduce falls in people with MS. We included trials that examined falls prevention interventions compared to controls or different types of falls prevention interventions. Primary outcomes included: falls rate, risk of falling, number of falls per person and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened studies for selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used a rate ratio (RaR) and 95% confidence interval to compare falls rate between groups. For risk of falling, we used a risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI based on the number of fallers in each group.\nMain results\nA total of 839 people with MS (12 to 177 individuals) were randomised in the 13 included trials. The mean age of the participants was 52 years (36 to 62 years). The percentage of women participants ranged from 59% to 85%. Studies included people with all types of MS. Most trials compared an exercise intervention with no intervention or different types of falls prevention interventions. We included two comparisons: (1) Falls prevention intervention versus control and (2) Falls prevention intervention versus another falls prevention intervention. The most common interventions tested were exercise as a single intervention, education as a single intervention, functional electrical stimulation and exercise plus education. The risk of bias of the included studies mixed, with nine studies demonstrating high risk of bias related to one or more aspects of their methodology.\nThe evidence was uncertain regarding the effects of exercise versus control on falls rate (RaR of 0.68; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.06; very low-quality evidence), number of fallers (RR of 0.85; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.43; low-quality evidence) and adverse events (RR of 1.25; 95% CI 0.26 to 6.03; low-quality evidence).\nData were not available on quality of life outcomes comparing exercise to control. The majority of other comparisons between falls interventions and controls demonstrated no evidence of effect in favour of either group for all primary outcomes.\nFor the comparison of different falls prevention interventions, the heterogeneity of intervention types across studies prohibited the pooling of data.\nIn relation to secondary outcomes, there was evidence of an effect in favour of exercise interventions compared to controls for balance function with a SMD of 0.50 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.92), self-reported mobility with a SMD of 16.30 (95% CI 9.34 to 23.26) and objective mobility with a SMD of 0.28 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.50). Secondary outcomes were not assessed under the GRADE criteria and results must be interpreted with caution.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence regarding the effects of interventions for preventing falls in MS is sparse and uncertain. The evidence base demonstrates mixed risk of bias, with very low to low certainty of the evidence. There is some evidence in favour of exercise interventions for the improvement of balance function and mobility. However, this must be interpreted with caution as these secondary outcomes were not assessed under the GRADE criteria and as the results represent data from a small number of studies. Robust RCTs examining the effectiveness of multifactorial falls interventions on falls outcomes 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": "Due to damage to the central nervous system among people with MS, difficulties in thinking, muscle strength, muscle tone, sensation, coordination and mobility can lead to an increased risk of falling, compared to people without MS. Interventions to prevent falls are offered to people with MS and often include: exercises, medication, surgery, management of urinary incontinence, fluid or nutrition therapy, psychological intervention, environment/assistive technology, environment (social environment), knowledge interventions and other interventions. The risk of falling in people with MS is three times higher than that in older people, yet it is unclear whether falls interventions are effective in reducing falls in MS. Currently there are a few good-quality studies that have investigated the effectiveness of falls interventions in people with MS." } ]
query-laysum	22429	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is characterised by the regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a common presentation in infancy, both in primary and secondary care, affecting approximately 50% of infants under three months old. The natural history of GOR in infancy is generally of a self-limiting condition that improves with age, but older children and children with co-existing medical conditions can have more protracted symptoms. The distinction between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and GOR is debated. Current National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines define GORD as GOR causing symptoms severe enough to merit treatment. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for GOR in infants and children.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 17 September 2022. We also searched for ongoing trials in clinical trials registries, contacted experts in the field, and searched the reference lists of trials and reviews for any additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any currently-available pharmacological treatment for GOR in children with placebo or another medication. We excluded studies assessing dietary management of GORD and studies of thickened feeds. We included studies in infants and children up to 16 years old.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodology expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 36 RCTs involving 2251 children and infants. We were able to extract summary data from 14 RCTs; the remaining trials had insufficient data for extraction. We were unable to pool results in a meta-analysis due to methodological differences in the included studies (including heterogeneous outcomes, study populations, and study design).\nWe present the results in two groups by age: infants up to 12 months old, and children aged 12 months to 16 years old.\nInfants\nOmeprazole versus placebo: there is no clear effect on symptoms from omeprazole. One study (30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed cry/fuss time in infants aged three to 12 months had altered from 246 ± 105 minutes/day at baseline (mean +/- standard deviation (SD)) to 191 ± 120 minutes/day in the omeprazole group and from 287 ± 132 minutes/day to 201 ± 100 minutes/day in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 10 minutes/day lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -89.1 to 69.1)). The reflux index changed in the omeprazole group from 9.9 ± 5.8% in 24 hours to 1.0 ± 1.3% and in the placebo group from 7.2 ± 6.0% to 5.3 ± 4.9% in 24 hours (MD 7% lower, 95% CI -4.7 to -9.3).\nOmeprazole versus ranitidine: one study (76 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed omeprazole may or may not provide symptomatic benefit equivalent to ranitidine. Symptom scores in the omeprazole group changed from 51.9 ± 5.4 to 2.4 ± 1.2, and in the ranitidine group from 47 ± 5.6 to 2.5 ± 0.6 after two weeks: MD -4.97 (95% CI -7.33 to -2.61).\nEsomeprazole versus placebo: esomeprazole appeared to show no additional reduction in the number of GORD symptoms compared to placebo (1 study, 52 neonates; very low-certainty evidence): both the esomeprazole group (184.7 ± 78.5 to 156.7 ± 75.1) and placebo group (183.1 ± 77.5 to 158.3 ± 75.9) improved: MD -3.2 (95% CI -4.6 to -1.8).\nChildren\nProton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at different doses may provide little to no symptomatic and endoscopic benefit.\nRabeprazole given at different doses (0.5 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg) may provide similar symptom improvement (127 children in total; very low-certainty evidence). In the lower-dose group (0.5 mg/kg), symptom scores improved in both a low-weight group of children (< 15 kg) (mean -10.6 ± SD 11.13) and a high-weight group of children (> 15 kg) (mean -13.6 ± 13.1). In the higher-dose groups (1 mg/kg), scores improved in the low-weight (-9 ± 11.2) and higher-weight groups (-8.3 ± 9.2). For the higher-weight group, symptom score mean difference between the two different dosing regimens was 2.3 (95% CI -2 to 6.6), and for the lower-weight group, symptom score MD was 4.6 (95% CI -2.9 to 12).\nPantoprazole: pantoprazole may or may not improve symptom scores at 0.3 mg/kg, 0.6 mg/kg, and 1.2 mg/kg pantoprazole in children aged one to five years by week eight, with no difference between 0.3 mg/kg and 1.2 mg/kg dosing (0.3 mg/kg mean −2.4 ± 1.7; 1.2 mg/kg −1.7 ± 1.2: MD 0.7 (95% CI -0.4 to 1.8)) (one study, 60 children; very low-certainty evidence).\nThere were insufficient summary data to assess other medications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-certainty evidence about symptom improvements and changes in pH indices for infants. There are no summary data for endoscopic changes. Medications may or may not provide a benefit (based on very low-certainty evidence) for infants whose symptoms remain bothersome, despite nonmedical interventions or parental reassurance. If a medication is required, there is no clear evidence based on summary data for omeprazole, esomeprazole (in neonates), H₂antagonists, and alginates for symptom improvements (very low-certainty evidence). Further studies with longer follow-up are needed.\nIn older children with GORD, in studies with summary data extracted, there is very low-certainty evidence that PPIs (rabeprazole and pantoprazole) may or may not improve GORD outcomes. No robust data exist for other medications.\nFurther RCT evidence is required in all areas, including subgroups (preterm babies and children with neurodisabilities).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is gastro-oesophageal reflux treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Medicines can thicken the stomach contents (alginates), neutralise stomach acid (ranitidine, omeprazole, lansoprazole), or help the stomach to empty faster (domperidone, erythromycin)." } ]
query-laysum	22430	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nClinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system (computer-generated) and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on quality of care (outcomes related to healthcare professionals' practice) and patient outcomes (outcomes related to patients' health condition).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers up to 21 September 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included individual- or cluster-randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone (single-component intervention) or in addition to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention), compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median improvement and interquartile range (IQR) across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified 35 studies (30 randomized trials and five non-randomized trials) and analyzed 34 studies (40 comparisons). Twenty-nine studies took place in the USA and six studies took place in Canada, France, Israel, and Kenya. All studies except two took place in outpatient care. Reminders were aimed at enhancing compliance with preventive guidelines (e.g. cancer screening tests, vaccination) in half the studies and at enhancing compliance with disease management guidelines for acute or chronic conditions (e.g. annual follow-ups, laboratory tests, medication adjustment, counseling) in the other half.\nComputer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), probably improves quality of care slightly compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 6.8% (IQR: 3.8% to 17.5%); 34 studies (40 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).\nComputer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals alone (single-component intervention) probably improves quality of care compared with usual care (median improvement 11.0% (IQR 5.4% to 20.0%); 27 studies (27 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence). Adding computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention) probably improves quality of care slightly compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 4.0% (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%); 11 studies (13 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether reminders, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), improve patient outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (n = 6 studies (seven comparisons)). None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects of the intervention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals probably slightly improves quality of care, in terms of compliance with preventive guidelines and compliance with disease management guidelines. It is uncertain whether reminders improve patient outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can probably improve quality of care in various settings under various conditions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The aim of this Cochrane review was to find out if reminders, automatically generated through a computer, but delivered on paper to doctors help them provide the best recommended care. Cochrane researchers identified 35 studies and analyzed 34 of these studies to answer this question." } ]
query-laysum	22431	[ { "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: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is current to 11 November 2021." } ]
query-laysum	22432	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThere is now a rising commitment to acknowledge the role patients and families play in contributing to their safety. This review focuses on one type of involvement in safety - patient and family involvement in escalation of care for serious life-threatening conditions i.e. helping secure a step-up to urgent or emergency care - which has been receiving increasing policy and practice attention. This review was concerned with the negotiation work that patient and family members undertake across the emergency care escalation pathway, once contact has been made with healthcare staff. It includes interventions aiming to improve detection of symptoms, communication of concerns and staff response to these concerns.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions designed to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness on patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP) ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from 1 Jan 2000 to 24 August 2018. The search was updated on 21 October 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials where the intervention focused on patients and families working with healthcare professionals to ensure care received for acute deterioration was timely and appropriate. A key criterion was to include an interactive element of rehearsal, role play, modelling, shared language, group work etc. to the intervention to help patients and families have agency in the process of escalation of care. The interventions included components such as enabling patients and families to detect changes in patients' conditions and to speak up about these changes to staff. We also included studies where the intervention included a component targeted at enabling staff response.\nData collection and analysis\nSeven of the eight authors were involved in screening; two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion to reach consensus. Primary outcomes included patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events. Our advisory group (four users and four providers) ensured that the review was of relevance and could inform policy and practice.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies involving 436,684 patients and family members and one ongoing study. The published studies focused on patients with specific conditions such as coronary artery disease, ischaemic stroke, and asthma, as well as pregnant women, inpatients on medical surgical wards, older adults and high-risk patients with a history of poor self-management.\nWhile all studies tested interventions versus usual care, for four studies the usual care group also received educational or information strategies. Seven of the interventions involved face-to-face, interactional education/coaching sessions aimed at patients/families while two provided multi-component education programmes which included components targeted at staff as well as patients/families. All of the interventions included: (1) an educational component about the acute condition and preparedness for future events such as stroke or change in fetal movements: (2) an engagement element (self-monitoring, action plans); while two additionally focused on shared language or communication skills.\nWe had concerns about risk of bias for all but one of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, particularly regarding blinding of participants and personnel. Our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was moderate to low.\nLow-certainty evidence suggests that there may be moderate improvement in patients’ knowledge of acute life-threatening conditions, danger signs, appropriate care-seeking responses, and preparedness capacity between interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes and usual care at 12 months (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.44 to 5.97, 2 studies, 687 participants). Four studies in total assessed knowledge (3,086 participants) but we were unable to include two other studies in the pooled analysis due to differences in the way outcome measures were reported. One found no improvement in knowledge but higher symptom preparedness at 12 months. The other study found an improvement in patients’ knowledge about symptoms and appropriate care-seeking responses in the intervention group at 18 months compared with usual care.\nLow-certainty evidence from two studies, each using a different measure, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of patient-based interventions on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was higher in the intervention group in one study but there was no difference in the other compared with usual care.\nWe are uncertain whether interactional patient-facing and multi-component programmes improve time from the start of patient symptoms to treatment due to low-certainty evidence for this outcome. We were unable to combine the data due to differences in outcome measures. Three studies found that arrival times or prehospital delay time was no different between groups. One found that delay time was shorter in the intervention group.\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests that multi-component interventions probably have little or no impact on mortality rates. Only one study on a pregnant population was eligible for inclusion in the review, which found no difference between groups in rates of stillbirth. In terms of unintended events, we found that interactional patient-facing interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels (moderate-certainty evidence).\nNone of the studies measured or reported patient and family perceptions of involvement in escalation of care or patient and family experience of patient care. Reported outcomes related to healthcare professionals were also not reported in any studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review identified that interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes (including staff) to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness may improve patient and family knowledge about danger signs and care-seeking responses, and probably have few adverse effects on patient’s anxiety levels when compared to usual care. Multi-component interventions probably have little impact on mortality rates. Further high-quality trials are required using multi-component interventions and a focus on relational elements of care. Cognitive and behavioural outcomes should be included at patient and staff level.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Our confidence in our results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We are moderately confident about the effect of the strategies on anxiety levels and on stillbirth, although these results might change with further evidence. We are less confident about our other findings, which are likely to change with further evidence. Some of the studies we compared had small numbers of people taking part, so their results may have been unreliable." } ]
query-laysum	22433	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn people with haemophilia, therapeutic clotting agents might be recognised as a foreign protein and induce anti-factor VIII antibodies, known as 'inhibitors'. Drugs insensitive to such antibodies, either recombinant or plasma-derived, are called factor VIII 'by-passing' agents and used for treatment of bleeding in people with inhibitors.\nObjectives\nTo determine the clinical effectiveness of recombinant factor VIIa concentrate compared to plasma-derived concentrates for treating acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Coagulopathies Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.\nDate of the most recent search of the Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 23 September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing recombinant factor VIIa concentrate to human plasma-derived concentrates (high-dose human or recombinant factor VIII or factor IX concentrate; non-activated prothrombin complex concentrates; activated prothrombin complex concentrates) in people with haemophilia. Comparisons with animal-derived products were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed the trials (eligibility and risk of bias) and extracted data. No combined meta-analyses were performed due to the unavailability of outcomes and comparisons common to the included trials.\nMain results\nA total of 15 trials were identified, two of which (with data for a total of 69 participants) were eligible for analysis. Both trials showed methodological flaws and did not show superiority of one treatment over the other. Both the treatments showed that recombinant factor VIIa and activated prothrombin complex concentrate appeared to have a similar haemostatic effect in both trials, without increasing thromboembolic risk.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the separate analysis of the two available randomised trials, recombinant factor VIIa and activated prothrombin complex concentrate were found to be similar in efficacy and safety. However, there is a need for further, well-designed, adequately-powered, randomised controlled trials to assess the relative benefits and risks of using recombinant factor VIIa compared to human plasma-derived concentrates in people with haemophilia with inhibitors. It is advisable that researchers in the field define commonly agreed objective outcome measures in order to enable the pooling of their results, thus increasing the power of comparisons. To date, data could not be combined in a formal meta-analysis. For the same reason reporting concordant and discordant pairs in cross-over trials is recommended.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review included two trials with 69 people (aged one to 55 years) with severe haemophilia with inhibitors. Both trials compared recombinant factor VIIa with activated prothrombin complex concentrate and people were selected for one treatment or the other randomly." } ]
query-laysum	22434	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPortal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding (haemorrhage) from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal bleeding commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in adults is the established standard of care because of the results of numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal bleeding. However, sclerotherapy is the only endoscopic prophylactic option currently available in infants weighing less than 10 kg of bodyweight due to the size of the endoscopic ligator.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy versus any type of beta-blocker for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Elsevier, LILACS (Bireme), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science) in February 2019. We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from January 2008 to December 2018. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, EMA, and WHO, for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status, assessing sclerotherapy versus any type of beta-blocker for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. We planned to include quasi-randomised and other observational studies retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials for report of harm.\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to collect and summarise data from randomised clinical trials as described in our protocol, using standard Cochrane methodologies.\nMain results\nWe found no randomised clinical trials assessing sclerotherapy versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRandomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of sclerotherapy versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy versus beta-blockers on patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of the two interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Aims\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We aimed to conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials to assess the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy versus beta-blockers for prevention of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis (blockage or narrowing of the portal vein (the blood vessel that brings blood to the liver from the intestines) by a blood clot). We searched for studies to February 2019." } ]
query-laysum	22435	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGenerally, before being operated on, patients will be given informal information by the healthcare providers involved in the care of the patients (doctors, nurses, ward clerks, or healthcare assistants). This information can also be provided formally in different formats including written information, formal lectures, or audio-visual recorded information.\nObjectives\nTo compare the benefits and harms of formal preoperative patient education for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to March 2013.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language and publication status.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted the data. We planned to calculate the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes based on intention-to-treat analyses when data were available.\nMain results\nA total of 431 participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to formal patient education (215 participants) versus standard care (216 participants) in four trials. The patient education included verbal education, multimedia DVD programme, computer-based multimedia programme, and PowerPoint presentation in the four trials. All the trials were of high risk of bias. One trial including 212 patients reported mortality. There was no mortality in either group in this trial. None of the trials reported surgery-related morbidity, quality of life, proportion of patients discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the length of hospital stay, return to work, or the number of unplanned visits to the doctor. There were insufficient details to calculate the mean difference and 95% CI for the difference in pain scores at 9 to 24 hours (1 trial; 93 patients); and we did not identify clear evidence of an effect on patient knowledge (3 trials; 338 participants; SMD 0.19; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.41; very low quality evidence), patient satisfaction (2 trials; 305 patients; SMD 0.48; 95% CI -0.42 to 1.37; very low quality evidence), or patient anxiety (1 trial; 76 participants; SMD -0.37; 95% CI -0.82 to 0.09; very low quality evidence) between the two groups.\nA total of 173 participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to electronic consent with repeat-back (patients repeating back the information provided) (92 participants) versus electronic consent without repeat-back (81 participants) in one trial of high risk of bias. The only outcome reported in this trial was patient knowledge. The effect on patient knowledge between the patient education with repeat-back versus patient education without repeat-back groups was imprecise and based on 1 trial of 173 participants; SMD 0.07; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.37; very low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the very low quality of the current evidence, the effects of formal patient education provided in addition to the standard information provided by doctors to patients compared with standard care remain uncertain. Further well-designed randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias are necessary.\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 liver produces bile, which has many functions including elimination of waste processed by the liver and digestion of fat. The bile is temporarily stored in the gallbladder (an organ situated underneath the liver in the abdomen (belly) before it reaches the small bowel. Concretions in the gallbladder are called gallstones. Gallstones are present in about 5% to 25% of the adult western population. Between 2% and 4% become symptomatic in one year. The symptoms include pain related to the gallbladder (biliary colic), inflammation of the gallbladder (cholecystitis), obstruction to the flow of bile from the liver and gallbladder into the small bowel resulting in jaundice (yellowish discolouration of the body usually most prominently noticed in the white of the eye, which turns yellow), bile infection (cholangitis), and inflammation of the pancreas, an organ that secretes digestive juices and harbours the insulin-secreting cells that maintain blood sugar level (pancreatitis). Removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy) is currently considered the best treatment option for patients with symptomatic gallstones. This is generally performed by key-hole surgery (laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Generally, before being operated on, patients will be given informal information by the healthcare providers involved in the care of the patients (doctors, nurses, ward clerks, or healthcare assistants). This information is likely to include some information on the type of anaesthesia, expected duration of surgery, expected outcome of surgery including the complications, duration of hospital stay, wound dressing care (if applicable), return to normal activity, and return to work. This information can also be provided formally in different formats including written information, formal lectures, video, or computer presentations. The review authors set out to determine whether it is preferable to provide formal information to the patients before the operation." } ]
query-laysum	22436	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute to the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence on the use of relaxation therapies for pain management in labour. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects of mind-body relaxation techniques for pain management in labour on maternal and neonatal well-being during and after labour.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 5 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to 24 May 2017), CINAHL (1980 to 24 May 2017), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (18 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (18 May 2017), the ISRCTN Register (18 May 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 May 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (including quasi randomised and cluster trials) comparing relaxation methods with standard care, no treatment, other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We attempted to contact study authors for additional information. We assessed evidence quality with GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nThis review update includes 19 studies (2519 women), 15 of which (1731 women) contribute data. Interventions examined included relaxation, yoga, music and mindfulness. Approximately half of the studies had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and attrition bias. The majority of studies had a high risk of bias for performance and detection bias, and unclear risk of bias for, allocation concealment, reporting bias and other bias. We assessed the evidence from these studies as ranging from low to very low quality, and therefore the effects below should be interpreted with caution.\nRelaxation\nWe found that relaxation compared to usual care provided lowered the intensity of pain (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) during the latent phase of labour (mean difference (MD) -1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.97 to -0.53, one trial, 40 women). Four trials reported pain intensity in the active phase; there was high heterogeneity between trials and very low-quality evidence suggested that there was no strong evidence that the effects were any different between groups for this outcome (MD -1.08, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.41, four trials, 271 women, random-effects analysis). Very low-quality evidence showed that women receiving relaxation reported greater satisfaction with pain relief during labour (risk ratio (RR) 8.00, 95% CI 1.10 to 58.19, one trial, 40 women), and showed no clear benefit for satisfaction with childbirth experience (assessed using different scales) (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.31, three trials, 1176 women). For safety outcomes there was very low-quality evidence of no clear reduction in assisted vaginal birth (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.84, four trials, 1122 women) or in caesarean section rates (average RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.01, four trials, 1122 women). Sense of control in labour, and breastfeeding were not reported under this comparison.\nYoga\nWhen comparing yoga to control interventions there was low-quality evidence that yoga lowered pain intensity (measured on a scale of 0 to 10) with low scores indicating less pain) (MD -6.12, 95% CI -11.77 to -0.47, one trial, 66 women), greater satisfaction with pain relief (MD 7.88, 95% CI 1.51 to 14.25, one trial, 66 women) and greater satisfaction with childbirth experience (MD 6.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 12.42 one trial, 66 women (assessed using the Maternal Comfort Scale with higher score indicating greater comfort). Sense of control in labour, breastfeeding, assisted vaginal birth, and caesarean section were not reported under this comparison.\nMusic\nWhen comparing music to control interventions there was evidence of lower pain intensity in the latent phase for women receiving music (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) (MD -0.73, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.45, random-effects analysis, two trials, 192 women) and very low-quality evidence of no clear benefit in the active phase (MD -0.51, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.07, three trials, 217 women). Very low-quality evidence suggested no clear benefit in terms of reducing assisted vaginal birth (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05, one trial, 156 women) or caesarean section rate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.70, two trials, 216 women). Satisfaction with pain relief, sense of control in labour, satisfaction with childbirth experience, and breastfeeding were not reported under this comparison.\nAudio analgesia\nOne trial evaluating audio analgesia versus control only reported one outcome and showed no evidence of benefit in satisfaction with pain relief.\nMindfulness\nOne trial evaluating mindfulness versus usual care found an increase in sense of control for the mindfulness group (using the Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory) (MD 31.30, 95% CI 1.61 to 60.99, 26 women). There is no strong evidence that the effects were any different between groups for satisfaction in childbirth, or for caesarean section rate, need for assisted vaginal delivery or need for pharmacological pain relief. No other outcomes were reported in this trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRelaxation, yoga and music may have a role with reducing pain, and increasing satisfaction with pain relief, although the quality of evidence varies between very low to low. There was insufficient evidence for the role of mindfulness and audio-analgesia. The majority of trials did not report on the safety of the interventions. Further randomised controlled trials of relaxation modalities for pain management in labour are needed. Trials should be adequately powered and include clinically relevant outcomes such as those described in this review.\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": "This Cochrane Review looked at whether mind-body techniques for relaxation such as breathing techniques, visualisation, yoga or music would help with reducing pain, and improve women’s experiences of labour. We collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question (date of search: May 2017)." } ]
query-laysum	22437	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDislocation following hip replacement is associated with significant morbidity and functional cost. The cause is usually multifactorial. A variety of treatment options are available which can broadly be classified into operative and non-operative.\nObjectives\nTo determine the best methods of treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement.\nSearch methods\nThe following databases were searched until August 2006: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Health Technology Assessment database (HTA), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN), and MetaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing operative and non-operative treatments for recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent reviewers applied the inclusion criteria to identified studies.\nMain results\nSearches identified 269 studies. None fulfilled the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe authors invite researchers to perform RCTs comparing different treatment options for recurrent dislocation of the hip. The heterogeneity of the population and variety of underlying causes would favour a multi-centre study to achieve an adequate sample size.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the results of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "No evidence was found that looked at the treatments for dislocation of the hip after surgery." } ]
query-laysum	22438	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Early intervention for those with high cardiovascular risk is crucial in improving patient outcomes. Traditional prevention strategies for CVD have focused on conventional risk factors, such as overweight, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, and hypertension, which may reflect the potential for cardiovascular insult. Natriuretic peptides (NPs), including B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), are well-established biomarkers for the detection and diagnostic evaluation of heart failure. They are of interest for CVD prevention because they are secreted by the heart as a protective response to cardiovascular stress, strain, and damage. Therefore, measuring NP levels in patients without heart failure may be valuable for risk stratification, to identify those at highest risk of CVD who would benefit most from intensive risk reduction measures.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment for people with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure.\nSearch methods\nSearches of the following bibliographic databases were conducted up to 9 July 2019: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Three clinical trial registries were also searched in July 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials enrolling adults with one or more cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure, which compared NP-based screening and subsequent NP-guided treatment versus standard care in all settings (i.e. community, hospital).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data and to verify crucial study characteristics. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, two review authors independently assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included two randomised controlled trials (three reports) with 1674 participants, with mean age between 64.1 and 67.8 years. Follow-up ranged from 2 years to mean 4.3 years.\nFor primary outcome measures, effect estimates from a single study showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on cardiovascular mortality in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.17; 1 study; 300 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated that in comparison to standard care, NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.68; 2 studies; 1674 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 163 per 1000 in the control group and 85 (95% CI 65 to 111) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group.\nWhen secondary outcome measures were evaluated, evidence from a pooled analysis showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.35; 2 studies; 1354 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis indicates that NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92; 2 studies; 1354 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 601 per 1000 in the control group and 499 (95% CI 457 to 553) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group. The effect estimate from a single study indicates that NP-guided treatment reduced the risk of ventricular dysfunction (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; 1374 participants; high-quality evidence). The risk in this study's control group was 87 per 1000, compared with 53 (95% CI 36 to 79) per 1000 with NP-guided treatment. Results from the same study show that NP-guided treatment does not affect change in NP level at the end of follow-up, relative to standard care (MD -4.06 pg/mL, 95% CI -15.07 to 6.95; 1 study; 1374 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review shows that NP-guided treatment is likely to reduce ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalisation for patients who have cardiovascular risk factors and who do not have heart failure. Effects on mortality and natriuretic peptide levels are less certain. Neither of the included studies were powered to evaluate mortality. Available evidence shows uncertainty regarding the effects of NP-guided treatment on both cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality; very low event numbers resulted in a high degree of imprecision in these effect estimates. Evidence also shows that NP-guided treatment may not affect NP level at the end of follow-up.\nAs both trials included in our review were pragmatic studies, non-blinding of patients and practices may have biased results towards a finding of equivalence. Further studies with more adequately powered sample sizes and longer duration of follow-up are required to evaluate the effect of NP-guided treatment on mortality. As two trials are ongoing, one of which is a large multi-centre trial, it is hoped that future iterations of this review will benefit from larger sample sizes across a wider geographical area.\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": "Evidence in this review is current to July 2019. We included two randomised controlled trials (where participants have an equal chance of being assigned to either treatment) including 1674 adult participants who had one or more risk factors for developing CVD, which compared NP-guided treatment with standard care. We excluded patients with symptoms of heart failure. The mean age of participants varied between 64.1 and 67.8 years. Patients were followed-up for between 2 years and a mean of 4.2 years." } ]
query-laysum	22439	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis is a multi-system disease characterised by the production of thick secretions causing recurrent pulmonary infection, often with unusual bacteria. This leads to lung destruction and eventually death through respiratory failure. There are no antibiotics in development that exert a new mode of action and many of the current antibiotics are ineffective in eradicating the bacteria once chronic infection is established. Antibiotic adjuvants - therapies that act by rendering the organism more susceptible to attack by antibiotics or the host immune system, by rendering it less virulent or killing it by other means, would be a significant therapeutic advance. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo determine if antibiotic adjuvants improve clinical and microbiological outcome of pulmonary infection in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register which is compiled from database searches, hand searches of appropriate journals and conference proceedings.\nDate of most recent search: 16 January 2020.\nWe also searched MEDLINE (all years) on 14 February 2019 and ongoing trials registers on 06 April 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of a therapy exerting an antibiotic adjuvant mechanism of action compared to placebo or no therapy for people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo of the authors independently assessed and extracted data from identified trials.\nMain results\nWe identified 42 trials of which eight (350 participants) that examined antibiotic adjuvant therapies are included. Two further trials are ongoing and five are awaiting classification. The included trials assessed β-carotene (one trial, 24 participants), garlic (one trial, 34 participants), KB001-A (a monoclonal antibody) (two trials, 196 participants), nitric oxide (two trials, 30 participants) and zinc supplementation (two trials, 66 participants). The zinc trials recruited children only, whereas the remaining trials recruited both adults and children. Three trials were located in Europe, one in Asia and four in the USA.\nThree of the interventions measured our primary outcome of pulmonary exacerbations (β-carotene, mean difference (MD) -8.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) -18.78 to 2.78); KB001-A, risk ratio (RR) 0.25 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.40); zinc supplementation, RR 1.85 (95% CI 0.65 to 5.26). β-carotene and KB001-A may make little or no difference to the number of exacerbations experienced (low-quality evidence); whereas, given the moderate-quality evidence we found that zinc probably makes no difference to this outcome.\nRespiratory function was measured in all of the included trials. β-carotene and nitric oxide may make little or no difference to forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (low-quality evidence), whilst garlic probably makes little or no difference to FEV1 (moderate-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether zinc or KB001-A improve FEV1 as the certainty of this evidence is very low.\nFew adverse events were seen across all of the different interventions and the adverse events that were reported were mild or not treatment-related (quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate).\nOne of the trials (169 participants) comparing KB001-A and placebo, reported on the time to the next course of antibiotics; results showed there is probably no difference between groups, HR 1.00 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.45) (moderate-quality evidence). Quality of life was only reported in the two KB001-A trials, which demonstrated that there may be little or no difference between KB001-A and placebo (low-quality evidence). Sputum microbiology was measured and reported for the trials of KB001-A and nitric oxide (four trials). There was very low-quality evidence of a numerical reduction in Pseudomonas aeruginosa density with KB001-A, but it was not significant. The two trials looking at the effects of nitric oxide reported significant reductions in Staphylococcus aureus and near-significant reductions in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, but the quality of this evidence is again very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe could not identify an antibiotic adjuvant therapy that we could recommend for treating of lung infection in people with cystic fibrosis. The emergence of increasingly resistant bacteria makes the reliance on antibiotics alone challenging for cystic fibrosis teams. There is a need to explore alternative strategies, such as the use of adjuvant therapies. Further research is required to provide future therapeutic options.\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 use of agents to help antibiotics in treating lung infections in people with cystic fibrosis." } ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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