dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum
|
23450
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) range from acute bronchitis and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis to pneumonia. Approximately five million people die from acute respiratory tract infections annually. Among these, pneumonia represents the most frequent cause of mortality, hospitalisation and medical consultation. Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic, structurally modified from erythromycin and noted for its activity against some gram-negative organisms associated with respiratory tract infections, particularly Haemophilus influenzae (H. influenzae).\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness of azithromycin to amoxycillin or amoxycillin/clavulanic acid (amoxyclav) in the treatment of LRTI, in terms of clinical failure, incidence of adverse events and microbial eradication.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October week 4, 2014) and EMBASE (January 1974 to November 2014).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, comparing azithromycin to amoxycillin or amoxycillin/clavulanic acid in participants with clinical evidence of an acute LRTI, such as acute bronchitis, pneumonia and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review authors independently assessed all potential studies identified from the searches for methodological quality. We extracted and analysed relevant data separately. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We initially pooled all types of acute LRTI in the meta-analyses. We investigated the heterogeneity of results using the forest plot and Chi2 test. We also used the index of the I2 statistic to measure inconsistent results among trials. We conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses.\nMain results\nWe included 16 trials involving 2648 participants. We were able to analyse 15 of the trials with 2496 participants. The pooled analysis of all the trials showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of clinical failure on about days 10 to 14 between the two groups (risk ratio (RR), random-effects 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.85). A subgroup analysis in trials with acute bronchitis participants showed significantly lower clinical failure in the azithromycin group compared to amoxycillin or amoxyclav (RR random-effects 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88). A sensitivity analysis showed a non-significant reduction in clinical failure in azithromycin-treated participants (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.21) in three adequately concealed studies, compared to RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.70 to 2.49 in 12 studies with inadequate concealment. Twelve trials reported the incidence of microbial eradication and there was no significant difference between the two groups (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03). The reduction of adverse events in the azithromycin group was RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.00).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is unclear evidence that azithromycin is superior to amoxycillin or amoxyclav in treating acute LRTI. In patients with acute bronchitis of a suspected bacterial cause, azithromycin tends to be more effective in terms of lower incidence of treatment failure and adverse events than amoxycillin or amoxyclav. However, most studies were of unclear methodological quality and had small sample sizes; future trials of high methodological quality and adequate sizes are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for trials published and pending as at November 2014."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23451
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) might theoretically reduce post-stroke disability by direct effects on the brain. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2012 and last updated in 2019.\nObjectives\nTo determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post-stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 7 January 2021), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 7 January 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2021), Embase (1974 to 7 January 2021), CINAHL (1982 to 7 January 2021), PsycINFO (1985 to 7 January 2021), and AMED (1985 to 7 January 2021). PsycBITE had previously been searched (16 July 2018). We searched clinical trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke survivors within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. The comparator was usual care or placebo. Studies reporting at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, cognition, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the study early) were included in the meta-analysis. The primary analysis included studies at low risk of bias.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data on demographics, stroke type and, our pre-specified outcomes, and bias sources. Two review authors independently extracted data. We used mean difference (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed bias risks and applied GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe identified 76 eligible studies (13,029 participants); 75 provided data at end of treatment, and of these two provided data at follow-up. Thirty-eight required participants to have depression to enter. The duration, drug, and dose varied. Six studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; all six studies did not need participants to have depression to enter, and all used fluoxetine. Of these six studies, there was little to no difference in disability between groups SMD -0.0; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 5 studies, 5436 participants, high-quality evidence) or in independence (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 5 studies, 5926 participants; high-quality evidence) at the end of treatment.\nIn the studies at low risk of bias across all domains, SSRIs slightly reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.14 lower, 95% CI 0.19 lower to 0.08 lower; 4 studies; 5356 participants, high-quality evidence) and there was a slight reduction in the proportion with depression (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86; 3 studies, 5907 participants, high-quality evidence).\nCognition was slightly better in the control group (MD -1.22, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.07; 4 studies, 5373 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nOnly one study (n = 30) reported neurological deficit score (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -1.12 to 0.33; low-quality evidence).\nSSRIs resulted in little to no difference in motor deficit (SMD 0.03, -0.02 to 0.08; 6 studies, 5518 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nSSRIs slightly increased the proportion leaving the study early (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.40; 6 studies, 6090 participants, high-quality evidence).\nSSRIs slightly increased the outcome of a seizure (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; 6 studies, 6080 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and a bone fracture (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41; 6 studies, 6080 participants, high-quality evidence).\nOne study at low risk of bias across all domains reported gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.33, to 8.83; 1 study, 30 participants).\nThere was no difference in the total number of deaths between SSRI and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.24; 6 studies, 6090 participants, moderate quality evidence).\nSSRIs probably result in little to no difference in fatigue (MD -0.06; 95% CI -1.24 to 1.11; 4 studies, 5524 participants, moderate-quality of evidence), nor in quality of life (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, 3 studies, 5482 participants, high-quality evidence).\nWhen all studies, irrespective of risk of bias, were included, SSRIs reduced disability scores but not the proportion independent.\nThere was insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of outcomes at end of follow-up.\nSeveral small ongoing studies are unlikely to alter conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high-quality evidence that SSRIs do not make a difference to disability or independence after stroke compared to placebo or usual care, reduced the risk of future depression, increased bone fractures and probably increased seizure risk.\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 are very confident that the results are reliable for the effect on disability, dependency and bone fractures, and moderately confident about the effect on seizure risk."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23452
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPrior to introducing pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs), Streptococcus pneumoniae was most commonly isolated from the middle ear fluid of children with acute otitis media (AOM). Reducing nasopharyngeal colonisation of this bacterium by PCVs may lead to a decline in AOM. The effects of PCVs deserve ongoing monitoring since studies from the post-PCV era report a shift in causative otopathogens towards non-vaccine serotypes and other bacteria. This updated Cochrane Review was first published in 2002 and updated in 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of PCVs in preventing AOM in children up to 12 years of age.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, and two trials registers, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, to 11 June 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of PCV versus placebo or control vaccine.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were frequency of all-cause AOM and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes included frequency of pneumococcal AOM and frequency of recurrent AOM (defined as three or more AOM episodes in six months or four or more in one year). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 15 publications of 11 trials (60,733 children, range 74 to 37,868 per trial) of 7- to 11-valent PCVs versus control vaccines (meningococcus type C vaccine in three trials, and hepatitis A or B vaccine in eight trials). We included one additional publication of a previously included trial for this 2020 update. We did not find any relevant trials with the newer 13-valent PCV. Most studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Overall, risk of bias was low. In seven trials (59,415 children), PCVs were administered in early infancy, whilst four trials (1318 children) included children aged one year and over who were either healthy or had a history of respiratory illness. There was considerable clinical heterogeneity across studies, therefore we reported results from individual studies.\nPCV administered in early infancy\nPCV7\nThe licenced 7-valent PCV with CRM197 as carrier protein (CRM197-PCV7) was associated with a 6% (95% confidence interval (CI) −4% to 16%; 1 trial; 1662 children) and 6% (95% CI 4% to 9%; 1 trial; 37,868 children) relative risk reduction (RRR) in low-risk infants (moderate-certainty evidence), but was not associated with a reduction in all-cause AOM in high-risk infants (RRR −5%, 95% CI −25% to 12%). PCV7 with the outer membrane protein complex of Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B as carrier protein (OMPC-PCV7) was not associated with a reduction in all-cause AOM (RRR −1%, 95% CI −12% to 10%; 1 trial; 1666 children; low-certainty evidence).\nCRM197-PCV7 and OMPC-PCV7 were associated with 20% (95% CI 7% to 31%) and 25% (95% CI 11% to 37%) RRR in pneumococcal AOM, respectively (2 trials; 3328 children; high-certainty evidence), and CRM197-PCV7 with 9% (95% CI −12% to 27%) and 10% (95% CI 7% to 13%) RRR in recurrent AOM (2 trials; 39,530 children; moderate-certainty evidence).\nPHiD-CV10/11\nThe effect of a licenced 10-valent PCV conjugated to protein D, a surface lipoprotein of Haemophilus influenzae, (PHiD-CV10) on all-cause AOM in healthy infants varied from 6% (95% CI −6% to 17%; 1 trial; 5095 children) to 15% (95% CI −1% to 28%; 1 trial; 7359 children) RRR (low-certainty evidence). PHiD-CV11 was associated with 34% (95% CI 21% to 44%) RRR in all-cause AOM (1 trial; 4968 children; moderate-certainty evidence).\nPHiD-CV10 and PHiD-CV11 were associated with 53% (95% CI 16% to 74%) and 52% (95% CI 37% to 63%) RRR in pneumococcal AOM (2 trials; 12,327 children; high-certainty evidence), and PHiD-CV11 with 56% (95% CI −2% to 80%) RRR in recurrent AOM (1 trial; 4968 children; low-certainty evidence).\nPCV administered at a later age\nPCV7\nWe found no evidence of a beneficial effect on all-cause AOM of administering CRM197-PCV7 in children aged 1 to 7 years with a history of respiratory illness or frequent AOM (2 trials; 457 children; moderate-certainty evidence) and CRM197-PCV7 combined with a trivalent influenza vaccine in children aged 18 to 72 months with a history of respiratory tract infections (1 trial; 597 children; moderate-certainty evidence).\nCRM197-PCV9\nIn 1 trial including 264 healthy daycare attendees aged 1 to 3 years, CRM197-PCV9 was associated with 17% (95% CI −2% to 33%) RRR in parent-reported all-cause otitis media (very low-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events\nNine trials reported on adverse effects (77,389 children; high-certainty evidence). Mild local reactions and fever were common in both groups, and occurred more frequently in PCV than in control vaccine groups: redness (< 2.5 cm): 5% to 20% versus 0% to 16%; swelling (< 2.5 cm): 5% to 12% versus 0% to 8%; and fever (< 39 °C): 15% to 44% versus 8% to 25%. More severe redness (> 2.5 cm), swelling (> 2.5 cm), and fever (> 39 °C) occurred less frequently (0% to 0.9%, 0.1% to 1.3%, and 0.4% to 2.5%, respectively) in children receiving PCV, and did not differ significantly between PCV and control vaccine groups. Pain or tenderness, or both, was reported more frequently in PCV than in control vaccine groups: 3% to 38% versus 0% to 8%. Serious adverse events judged to be causally related to vaccination were rare and did not differ significantly between groups, and no fatal serious adverse event judged causally related to vaccination was reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAdministration of the licenced CRM197-PCV7 and PHiD-CV10 during early infancy is associated with large relative risk reductions in pneumococcal AOM. However, the effects of these vaccines on all-cause AOM is far more uncertain based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence. We found no evidence of a beneficial effect on all-cause AOM of administering PCVs in high-risk infants, after early infancy, and in older children with a history of respiratory illness. Compared to control vaccines, PCVs were associated with an increase in mild local reactions (redness, swelling), fever, and pain and/or tenderness. There was no evidence of a difference in more severe local reactions, fever, or serious adverse events judged to be causally related to vaccination.\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": "Before nationwide implementation of vaccination against S pneumoniae with pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs), pneumococcus was the most frequent cause of acute middle ear infections in children. Vaccination against this bacterium with PCVs may therefore lead to fewer acute middle ear infections in children. However, ongoing monitoring of the effects of PCVs on acute middle ear infections is warranted, since recent studies report a shift in bacteria causing acute middle ear infections towards pneumococcal types not included in the vaccines and other bacteria."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23453
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages, who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe applied standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nWe included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy.\nStudy characteristics and risk of bias\nOf the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. Considering improvement in visual acuity, we assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains.\nFindings\nUsing sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.15 logMAR, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.24; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nUsing standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on improving BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse effects\nCompared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nEvidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time.\nTo better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.\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 assessed whether a steroid-containing implant (a small capsule that slowly releases steroids inside the eye) can reduce the return of uveitis, improve vision, or improve quality of life. We also evaluated whether these implants increased any unwanted side effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23454
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation increase mortality, morbidity, or hospital stay and are likely to increase overall transplant costs. All liver transplantation patients receive antibiotic prophylaxis. This is an update of our 2008 Cochrane systematic review on the same topic in which we identified seven randomised clinical trials.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of different methods aimed at preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications in people undergoing liver transplantation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language or publication status. We excluded quasi-randomised and other observational studies for assessment of benefits, but not for harms.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available-case analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified only seven trials for inclusion, including 614 participants. Only one trial was of low risk of bias risk. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low. There were five comparisons in the seven trials: selective bowel decontamination versus inactive control; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics with probiotics; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics; prebiotics with probiotics versus prebiotics; and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus control. Four trials compared selective bowel decontamination versus placebo or no treatment. In one trial, participants were randomised to selective bowel decontamination, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic), or to inactivated lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In one trial, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic) was compared with inactive lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In the remaining trial, different doses of G-CSF and placebo were compared. There was no trial comparing different antibiotic prophylactic regimens in people undergoing liver transplantation. Most trials included adults undergoing elective liver transplantation. There was no significant difference in proportion of people who died or required retransplantation between the intervention and control groups in any of the five comparison groups.\nMortality\nThere were no differences between 190 participants (three trials); 5/87 (adjusted proportion: 6.2%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 7/103 (6.8%) in inactive control group; RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.72); 63 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR - not estimable; 64 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 0/65 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; and 194 participants (one trial); 22/124 (17.7%) in G-CSF group versus 10/70 (14.3%) in placebo group; RR 1.24 (95% 0.62 to 2.47).\nRetransplantation\nThere were no differences between 132 participants (two trials); 4/58 (adjusted proportion: 6.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 6/74 (8.1%) in inactive control group; RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.85); 63 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 2.91 (0.12 to 68.81); 64 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR 3.00 (95% CI 0.13 to 71.00); 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 1/65 (1.5%) in prebiotics group; RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.9); and 194 participants (one trial); 10/124 (7.1%) in G-CSF group versus 5/70 (7.1%) in placebo group; RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.4 to 3.17).\nThere was no significant difference in the graft rejections, intensive therapy unit stay, or hospital stay between the intervention and control groups in any of the comparisons. Overall, 193/611 participants (31.6%) developed infective complications. The proportion of people who developed infective complications and the number of infective complication episodes were significantly higher in the selective bowel decontamination group than in the prebiotics with probiotics group (1 study; 63 participants; 15/32 (46.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 (12.9%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 3.63; 95% CI 1.36 to 9.74 and 23/32 participants (0.72 infective complications per participant) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 participants (0.13 infective complications per participant) in prebiotics with probiotics group; rate ratio 5.58; 95% CI 1.94 to 16.09). There was no significant difference between the proportion of participants who developed infection and the number of infection episodes between the intervention group and control group in any of the other comparisons.\nNo trials reported quality of life and overall serious adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is no clear evidence for any intervention offering significant benefits in the reduction of bacterial infections and wound complications in liver transplantation. Selective bowel decontamination may even increase the rate of infections compared with prebiotics with probiotics. The confidence intervals were wide and further randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias are necessary.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Future research\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Further well-designed randomised clinical trials are necessary in people undergoing liver transplantation. Such trials should include patient-oriented outcomes such as mortality, graft failure, quality of life, length of hospital stay, and serious adverse events related to the treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23455
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCroup is an acute viral respiratory infection with upper airway mucosal inflammation that may cause respiratory distress. Most cases are mild. Moderate to severe croup may require treatment with corticosteroids (the benefits of which are often delayed) and nebulised epinephrine (adrenaline) (the benefits of which may be short-lived and which can cause dose-related adverse effects including tachycardia, arrhythmias, and hypertension). Rarely, croup results in respiratory failure necessitating emergency intubation and ventilation.\nA mixture of helium and oxygen (heliox) may prevent morbidity and mortality in ventilated neonates by reducing the viscosity of the inhaled air. It is currently used during emergency transport of children with severe croup. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it relieves respiratory distress.\nThis review updates versions published in 2010, 2013, and 2018.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effect of heliox compared to oxygen or other active interventions, placebo, or no treatment on relieving signs and symptoms in children with croup as determined by a croup score and rates of admission and intubation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS, on 15 April 2021. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) on 15 April 2021. We contacted the British Oxygen Company, a leading supplier of heliox.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing the effect of heliox in comparison with placebo, no treatment, or any active intervention(s) in children with croup.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Data that could not be pooled for statistical analysis were reported descriptively.\nMain results\nWe included 3 RCTs involving a total of 91 children aged between 6 months and 4 years. Study duration was from 7 to 16 months, and all studies were conducted in emergency departments. Two studies were conducted in the USA and one in Spain. Heliox was administered as a mixture of 70% heliox and 30% oxygen. Risk of bias was low in two studies and high in one study because of its open-label design. We did not identify any new trials for this 2021 update.\nOne study of 15 children with mild croup compared heliox with 30% humidified oxygen administered for 20 minutes. There may be no difference in croup score changes between groups at 20 minutes (mean difference (MD) −0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.36 to 0.70) (Westley croup score, scale range 0 to 16). The mean croup score at 20 minutes postintervention may not differ between groups (MD −0.57, 95% CI −1.46 to 0.32). There may be no difference between groups in mean respiratory rate (MD 6.40, 95% CI −1.38 to 14.18) and mean heart rate (MD 14.50, 95% CI −8.49 to 37.49) at 20 minutes. The evidence for all outcomes in this comparison was of low certainty, downgraded for serious imprecision. All children were discharged, but information on hospitalisation, intubation, or re-presenting to emergency departments was not reported.\nIn another study, 47 children with moderate croup received one dose of oral dexamethasone (0.3 mg/kg) with either heliox for 60 minutes or no treatment. Heliox may slightly improve Taussig croup scores (scale range 0 to 15) at 60 minutes postintervention (MD −1.10, 95% CI −1.96 to −0.24), but there may be no difference between groups at 120 minutes (MD −0.70, 95% CI −1.56 to 0.16). Children treated with heliox may have lower mean Taussig croup scores at 60 minutes (MD −1.11, 95% CI −2.05 to -0.17) but not at 120 minutes (MD −0.71, 95% CI −1.72 to 0.30). Children treated with heliox may have lower mean respiratory rates at 60 minutes (MD −4.94, 95% CI −9.66 to −0.22), but there may be no difference at 120 minutes (MD −3.17, 95% CI −7.83 to 1.49). There may be a difference in hospitalisation rates between groups (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.41). We assessed the evidence for all outcomes in this comparison as of low certainty, downgraded due to imprecision and high risk of bias related to an open-label design. Information on heart rate and intubation was not reported.\nIn the third study, 29 children with moderate to severe croup all received continuous cool mist and intramuscular dexamethasone (0.6 mg/kg). They were then randomised to receive either heliox (given as a mixture of 70% helium and 30% oxygen) plus one to two doses of nebulised saline or 100% oxygen plus nebulised epinephrine (adrenaline), with gas therapy administered continuously for three hours. Heliox may slightly improve croup scores at 90 minutes postintervention, but may result in little or no difference overall using repeated-measures analysis. We assessed the evidence for all outcomes in this comparison as of low certainty, downgraded due to high risk of bias related to inadequate reporting. Information on hospitalisation or re-presenting to the emergency department was not reported.\nThe included studies did not report on adverse events, intensive care admissions, or parental anxiety.\nWe could not pool the available data because each comparison included data from only one study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the very limited available evidence, uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness and safety of heliox. Heliox may not be more effective than 30% humidified oxygen for children with mild croup, but may be beneficial in the short term for children with moderate croup treated with dexamethasone. The effect of heliox may be similar to 100% oxygen given with one or two doses of adrenaline. Adverse events were not reported, and it is unclear if these were monitored in the included studies. Adequately powered RCTs comparing heliox with standard treatments are needed to further assess the role of heliox in the treatment of children with moderate to severe croup.\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 did not include any new trials in this update.\nWe included 3 randomised controlled trials (studies in which participants are assigned to one of two or more treatment groups using a random method) involving a total of 91 children with croup aged from 6 months to 4 years. All studies were conducted in emergency departments. Studies took place with a duration of between 7 and 16 months; 2 studies were conducted in the USA, and 1 in Spain. In one study children with mild croup received either heliox or 30% oxygen; in another study children with moderate croup received oral dexamethasone (a type of corticosteroid) and either heliox or no treatment; and in the third study children with moderate to severe croup received injected dexamethasone and either heliox or 100% oxygen with adrenaline."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23456
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEvery year, an estimated one million children and young adolescents become ill with tuberculosis, and around 226,000 of those children die. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) is a molecular World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid diagnostic test that simultaneously detects Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance. We previously published a Cochrane Review 'Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assays for tuberculosis disease and rifampicin resistance in children'. The current review updates evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra in children presumed to have tuberculosis disease. Parts of this review update informed the 2022 WHO updated guidance on management of tuberculosis in children and adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra for detecting: pulmonary tuberculosis, tuberculous meningitis, lymph node tuberculosis, and rifampicin resistance, in children with presumed tuberculosis.\nSecondary objectives\nTo investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in accuracy estimates. For detection of tuberculosis, we considered age, comorbidity (HIV, severe pneumonia, and severe malnutrition), and specimen type as potential sources.\nTo summarize the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace results.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and three trial registers without language restrictions to 9 March 2021.\nSelection criteria\nCross-sectional and cohort studies and randomized trials that evaluated Xpert Ultra in HIV-positive and HIV-negative children under 15 years of age. We included ongoing studies that helped us address the review objectives. We included studies evaluating sputum, gastric, stool, or nasopharyngeal specimens (pulmonary tuberculosis), cerebrospinal fluid (tuberculous meningitis), and fine needle aspirate or surgical biopsy tissue (lymph node tuberculosis). For detecting tuberculosis, reference standards were microbiological (culture) or composite reference standard; for stool, we also included Xpert Ultra performed on a routine respiratory specimen. For detecting rifampicin resistance, reference standards were drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and, using QUADAS-2, assessed methodological quality judging risk of bias separately for each target condition and reference standard. For each target condition, we used the bivariate model to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We stratified all analyses by type of reference standard. We summarized the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace results; trace represents detection of a very low quantity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 14 studies (11 new studies since the previous review). For detection of pulmonary tuberculosis, 335 data sets (25,937 participants) were available for analysis. We did not identify any studies that evaluated Xpert Ultra accuracy for tuberculous meningitis or lymph node tuberculosis. Three studies evaluated Xpert Ultra for detection of rifampicin resistance. Ten studies (71%) took place in countries with a high tuberculosis burden based on WHO classification. Overall, risk of bias was low.\nDetection of pulmonary tuberculosis\nSputum, 5 studies\nXpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 75.3% (95% CI 64.3 to 83.8; 127 participants; high-certainty evidence), and specificity was 97.1% (95% CI 94.7 to 98.5; 1054 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nGastric aspirate, 7 studies\nXpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 70.4% (95% CI 53.9 to 82.9; 120 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and specificity was 94.1% (95% CI 84.8 to 97.8; 870 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nStool, 6 studies\nXpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 56.1% (95% CI 39.1 to 71.7; 200 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 93.3 to 99.4; 1232 participants; high certainty-evidence).\nNasopharyngeal aspirate, 4 studies\nXpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 43.7% (95% CI 26.7 to 62.2; 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity was 97.5% (95% CI 93.6 to 99.0; 489 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nXpert Ultra sensitivity was lower against a composite than a culture reference standard for all specimen types other than nasopharyngeal aspirate, while specificity was similar against both reference standards.\nInterpretation of results\nIn theory, for a population of 1000 children:\n• where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in sputum (by culture):\n- 101 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 26 (26%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and\n- 899 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis (false negative).\n• where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in gastric aspirate (by culture):\n- 123 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 53 (43%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and\n- 877 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis (false negative).\n• where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in stool (by culture):\n- 74 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 18 (24%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and\n- 926 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 44 (5%) would have tuberculosis (false negative).\n• where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in nasopharyngeal aspirate (by culture):\n- 66 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 22 (33%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and\n- 934 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 56 (6%) would have tuberculosis (false negative).\nDetection of rifampicin resistance\nXpert Ultra sensitivity was 100% (3 studies, 3 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity range was 97% to 100% (3 studies, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nTrace results\nXpert Ultra trace results, regarded as positive in children by WHO standards, were common. Xpert Ultra specificity remained high in children, despite the frequency of trace results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found Xpert Ultra sensitivity to vary by specimen type, with sputum having the highest sensitivity, followed by gastric aspirate and stool. Nasopharyngeal aspirate had the lowest sensitivity. Xpert Ultra specificity was high against both microbiological and composite reference standards. However, the evidence base is still limited, and findings may be imprecise and vary by study setting. Although we found Xpert Ultra accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance, results were based on a very small number of studies that included only three children with rifampicin resistance. Therefore, findings should be interpreted with caution. Our findings provide support for the use of Xpert Ultra as an initial rapid molecular diagnostic in children being evaluated for tuberculosis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the implications of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The results suggest that Xpert Ultra in sputum, gastric aspirate, stool, and nasopharyngeal aspirate is an accurate method for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in children.\nUsing Xpert Ultra in sputum, gastric aspirate, stool, and nasopharyngeal aspirate, the risk of missing a diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (confirmed by culture) is low, suggesting that only a small number of children will not receive treatment. The risk of incorrectly diagnosing a child as having pulmonary tuberculosis is slightly higher. This may result in some children receiving unnecessary treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23457
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is the most common symptom in the emergency setting; however, timely management of acute pain in children continues to be suboptimal. Intranasal drug delivery has emerged as an alternative method of achieving quicker drug delivery without adding to the distress of a child by inserting an intravenous cannula.\nObjectives\nWe identified and evaluated all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials to assess the effects of intranasal fentanyl (INF) versus alternative analgesic interventions in children with acute pain, with respect to reduction in pain score, occurrence of adverse events, patient tolerability, use of \"rescue analgesia,\" patient/parental satisfaction and patient mortality.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE (Ovid SP, from 1995 to January 2014); EMBASE (Ovid SP, from 1995 to January 2014); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO Host, from 1995 to January 2014); the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (BIREME, from 1995 to January 2014); Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts (from 1995 to January 2014); the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (from 1995 to January 2014); BIOSIS Previews (from 1995 to January 2014); the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (from 1995 to January 2014); International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) (from 1995 to January 2014); ClinicalTrials.gov (from 1995 to January 2014); and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (to January 2014).\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing INF versus any other pharmacological/non-pharmacological intervention for the treatment of children in acute pain (aged < 18 years).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent review authors assessed each title and abstract for relevance. Full copies of all studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved for further assessment. Mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to measure effect sizes. Two review authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using the tool of The Cochrane Collaboration to assess risk of bias, as per Chapter 8 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nThree studies (313 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One study compared INF versus intramuscular morphine (IMM); another study compared INF versus intravenous morphine (IVM); and another study compared standard concentration INF (SINF) versus high concentration INF (HINF). All three studies reported a reduction in pain score following INF administration. INF produced a greater reduction in pain score at 10 minutes post administration when compared with IMM (INF group pain score: 1/5 vs IMM group pain score: 2/5; P value 0.014). No other statistically significant differences in pain scores were reported at any other time point. When INF was compared with IVM and HINF, no statistically significant differences in pain scores were noted between treatment arms, before analgesia or at 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes post analgesia. Specifically, when INF was compared with IVM, both agents were seen to produce a statistically significant reduction in pain score up to 20 minutes post analgesia. No further reduction in pain score was noted after this time. When SINF was compared with HINF, a statistically and clinically significant reduction in pain scores over study time was observed (median decrease for both groups 40 mm, P value 0.000). No adverse events (e.g. opiate toxicity, death) were reported in any study following INF administration. One study described better patient tolerance to INF compared with IMM, which achieved statistical significance. The other studies described reports of a “bad taste” and vomiting with INF. Overall the risk of bias in all studies was considered low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nINF may be an effective analgesic for the treatment of patients with acute moderate to severe pain, and its administration appears to cause minimal distress to children. However, this review of published studies does not allow any definitive conclusions regarding whether INF is superior, non-inferior or equivalent to intramuscular or intravenous morphine. Limitations of this review include the following: few eligible studies for inclusion (three); no study examined the use of INF in children younger than three years of age; no study included children with pain from a \"medical\" cause (e.g. abdominal pain seen in appendicitis); and all eligible studies were conducted in Australia. Consequently, the findings may not be generalizable to other healthcare settings, to children younger than three years of age and to those with pain from a \"medical\" cause.\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 identified three studies that included 313 children with acute severe pain resulting from broken bones of the upper and lower limbs. These trials compared INF versus morphine administered by a needle into a muscle (intramuscular morphine) or via a drip into a vein (intravenous morphine), as well as standard concentration INF versus high concentration INF. The collective study population in these trials consisted of children three to 15 years of age. Males accounted for approximately two-thirds of the overall study population. The review concluded that INF may be an effective analgesic for the treatment of children in acute moderate to severe pain, and its administration appears to cause minimal distress to children; however, the evidence is insufficient to permit judgement of the effects of INF compared with intramuscular or intravenous morphine. No serious adverse events (e.g. opiate toxicity, death) were reported."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23458
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review is an update of 'Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults' last updated in Issue 2, 2013. Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin, capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams. High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, often following local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made.\nObjectives\nTo review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trials registries, and a pharmaceutical company's website to 10 June 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration, using high-concentration (5% or more) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain.\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. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.\nEfficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at specific points, usually 8 and 12 weeks. We also assessed average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline, and information on adverse events and withdrawals.\nWe assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies, involving 2488 participants, two more studies and 415 more participants than the previous version of this review. Studies were of generally good methodological quality; we judged only one study at high risk of bias, due to small size. Two studies used a placebo control and six used 0.04% topical capsaicin as an 'active' placebo to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.\nFor postherpetic neuralgia, we found four studies (1272 participants). At both 8 and 12 weeks about 10% more participants reported themselves much or very much improved with high-concentration capsaicin than with 'active' placebo; the point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTs) were 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) at 8 weeks and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) at 12 weeks (2 studies, 571 participants; moderate quality evidence). More participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with capsaicin than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12 (2 to 4 studies, 571 to 1272 participants; very low quality evidence).\nFor painful HIV-neuropathy, we found two studies (801 participants). One study reported the proportion of participants who were much or very much improved at 12 weeks (27% with high-concentration capsaicin and 10% with 'active' placebo). For both studies, more participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with capsaicin than control, with an NNT of 11 (very low quality evidence).\nFor peripheral diabetic neuropathy, we found one study (369 participants). It reported about 10% more participants who were much or very much improved at 8 and 12 weeks. One small study of 46 participants with persistent pain following inguinal herniorrhaphy did not show a difference between capsaicin and placebo for pain reduction (very low quality evidence).\nWe downgraded the quality of the evidence for efficacy outcomes by one to three levels due to sparse data, imprecision, possible effects of imputation methods, and susceptibility to publication bias.\nLocal adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (3.5%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events (six to eight studies, 21 to 67 events; moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to few events). No deaths were judged to be related to study medication.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigh-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia, HIV-neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy generated more participants with moderate or substantial levels of pain relief than control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. These results should be interpreted with caution as the quality of the evidence was moderate or very low. The additional proportion who benefited over control was not large, but for those who did obtain high levels of pain relief, there were usually additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is similar in its effects to other therapies for chronic pain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched scientific databases for studies that looked at the effects of high-concentration capsaicin in adults who had moderate or severe neuropathic pain. The treatment had to have effects measured for at least 8 weeks. The evidence is current to June 2016.\nEight studies satisfied our inclusion criteria, including two new studies for this update. The studies were well conducted."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23459
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIndividuals who have failed one or more full thickness penetrating keratoplasties may be offered repeat corneal surgery using an artificial or donor cornea. An artificial or prosthetic cornea is known as a keratoprosthesis. Both donor and artificial corneal transplantations involve removal of the diseased and opaque recipient cornea (or the previously failed cornea) and replacement with another donor or prosthetic cornea.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of artificial versus donor corneas in individuals who have had one or more failed donor corneal transplantations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 November 2019.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently assessed reports from the electronic searches to identify randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion or consultation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For discussion purposes, we summarized findings from relevant comparative case series. We performed no data synthesis.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing artificial corneas with donor corneas for repeat corneal transplantations.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe optimal management for those individuals who have failed a conventional corneal transplantation is unknown. Currently, in some centers, artificial corneal devices are routinely recommended after just one graft failure, while in other centers, they are not recommended until after multiple graft failures, or not at all. To date, there have been no controlled trials comparing the visual outcomes and complications of artificial corneal devices (particularly the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis, which is the most commonly implanted artificial corneal device) with repeat donor corneal transplantation, in order to guide surgeons and their patients. Such a trial is needed and would offer significant benefit to an ever-increasing pool of people with visual disability due to corneal opacification, most of whom are still in productive stages of their lives.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for studies published up to 4 November 2019."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23460
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGas gangrene is a rapidly progressive and severe disease that results from bacterial infection, usually as the result of an injury; it has a high incidence of amputation and a poor prognosis. It requires early diagnosis and comprehensive treatments, which may involve immediate wound debridement, antibiotic treatment, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, Chinese herbal medicine, systemic support, and other interventions. The efficacy and safety of many of the available therapies have not been confirmed.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of potential interventions in the treatment of gas gangrene compared with alternative interventions or no interventions.\nSearch methods\nIn March 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Science Citation Index, the China Biological Medicine Database (CBM-disc), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Chinese scientific periodical database of VIP INFORMATION (VIP) for relevant trials. We also searched reference lists of all identified trials and relevant reviews and four trials registries for eligible research. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared one treatment for gas gangrene with another treatment, or with no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nIndependently, two review authors selected potentially eligible studies by reviewing their titles, abstracts and full-texts. The two review authors extracted data using a pre-designed extraction form and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Any disagreement in this process was solved by the third reviewer via consensus. We could not perform a meta-analysis due to the small number of studies included in the review and the substantial clinical heterogeneity between them, so we produced a narrative review instead.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs with a total of 90 participants. Both RCTs assessed the effect of interventions on the 'cure rate' of gas gangrene; 'cure rate' was defined differently in each study, and differently to the way we defined it in this review.\nOne trial compared the addition of Chinese herbs to standard treatment (debridement and antibiotic treatment; 26 participants) against standard treatment alone (20 participants). At the end of the trial the estimated risk ratio (RR) of 3.08 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.00 to 9.46) favoured Chinese herbs. The other trial compared standard treatment (debridement and antibiotic treatment) plus topical hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT; 21 participants) with standard treatment plus systemic HBOT (23 participants). There was no evidence of difference between the two groups; RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.25 to 4.84). For both comparisons the GRADE assessment was very low quality evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision so further trials are needed to confirm these results.\nNeither trial reported on this review's primary outcomes of quality of life, and amputation and death due to gas gangrene, or on adverse events. Trials that addressed other therapies such as immediate debridement, antibiotic treatment, systemic support, and other possible treatments were not available.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRe-analysis of the cure rate based on the definition used in our review did not show beneficial effects of additional use of Chinese herbs or topical HBOT on treating gas gangrene. The absence of robust evidence meant we could not determine which interventions are safe and effective for treating gas gangrene. Further rigorous RCTs with appropriate randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding, which focus on cornerstone treatments and the most important clinical outcomes, are required to provide useful evidence in this area.\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": "Gas gangrene is a serious and intense infection that may lead to amputation of a limb and even death; it is a medical emergency. It usually occurs when an injury caused by trauma or accident becomes infected, or as the result of a postoperative infection, although it can also arise without obvious injury. Gas gangrene is caused by bacteria (especially Clostridium species), which can live and grow in wounds where there is a low concentration of oxygen. The bacteria release toxins that cause substantial damage to the tissue around the wound, and can cause fatal deterioration of the whole body. Successful management of the infection requires early diagnosis and effective treatments.\nA variety of treatments are used to treat gas gangrene. The main ones are debridement (removal of dead and foreign matter, and collections of blood, from the wound) and antibiotics to kill the bacteria. Other treatments that can be added to these essential treatments include hyperbaric oxygen therapy (in which oxygen is supplied at a high pressure), and Chinese herbal medicine, as well as other interventions that address the symptoms of gas gangrene."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23461
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTreatment strategies for childhood cancer are improving, resulting in higher survival rates. However, the consequences of childhood cancer do not end with the successful completion of cancer treatment. Most patients will develop late effects after cessation of treatment. Severe fatigue is seen as a common and debilitating late effect in cancer survivors. Although most research on fatigue has been performed in patients after adult-onset cancer, our review focuses on fatigue after childhood cancer.\nObjectives\nTo estimate the prevalence of severe fatigue after treatment for childhood cancer. Secondary objectives are to describe the course of severe fatigue following cancer treatment and to examine risk factors for fatigue, or factors associated with it.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library 2019; issue 8 March 2019), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1945 to 8 March 2019), Embase/Ovid (from 1947 to 8 March 2019), reference lists of included articles and several conference proceedings from 2011 to 2018.\nSelection criteria\nObservational studies, randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials reporting on fatigue in participants after treatment for childhood cancer. Case series and case reports were not eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risks of bias. If the publication did not present the prevalence of severe fatigue, we contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nWe included 30 studies (18,682 participants in total). Eighteen studies contributed to the main objective and 22 studies contributed to the secondary objectives. We found substantial differences between studies in cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, age of participants, questionnaires used to assess fatigue, and sample size. All included studies scored at least one 'Risk of bias' item as unclear or high risk.\nWe identified both clinical and statistical heterogeneity and therefore could not pool results, so we present them descriptively. Eighteen studies (describing 14,573 survivors) reported the prevalence of severe fatigue, which ranged from 0% to 61.7%. In a subgroup of three studies including children aged up to 18 years at fatigue assessment (268 survivors), prevalence rates ranged from 6.7% to 12.5%. In comparison, in a subgroup of 12 studies including participants aged 16 and over (13,952 survivors), prevalence rates ranged from 4.4% to 61.7%. The prevalence of severe fatigue in a subgroup of survivors of haematological cancer was presented in seven studies and ranged from 1.8% to 35.9% (1907 survivors). Prevalence of severe fatigue in brain cancer survivors was presented in two studies (252 survivors) and was 14.6% and 21.1% respectively. One study presented a prevalence for bone cancer survivors of 0.0% (17 survivors). Four studies provided prevalence rates of severe fatigue in control groups of siblings or population-based controls, which ranged from 3.1% to 10.3%. In these four studies, survivors were more often fatigued than controls, but this difference was statistically significant in only two studies.\nStudies assessing risk and associated factors for fatigue were heterogeneous, and definitions of the factors under study were often inconsistent, with results therefore presented descriptively. They found that depression might be associated with fatigue. In contrast, age at diagnosis and education level did not seem to be associated with fatigue. We were unable to calculate any overall risk estimate for any of the reported risks and associated factors, because we could not conduct meta-analysis.\nOne study provided information about the course of fatigue over time, and found that over the course of 2.7 years, 32 of the 102 participants (31.4%) reported persistent severe fatigue.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is unclear how many childhood cancer survivors suffer from severe fatigue. This review encountered several difficulties. We found statistical and clinical heterogeneity and great variation in the reporting of possible risk and associated factors. The evidence in this review is therefore weak, and the exact prevalence of severe fatigue after treatment for childhood cancer remains to be determined. This is also the case for the course of severe fatigue following treatment and the strength of the relationship between fatigue and associated and risk factors. Despite these limitations, our review does provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature about severe fatigue after treatment for childhood cancer.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Treatments for childhood cancer are improving and becoming more effective in curing cancer. The impact of having had cancer at a young age, together with often intensive cancer therapy, can affect physical and mental well-being later in life. Most survivors will develop one or more of these so-called late effects. Severe fatigue is a common late effect in people with adult-onset cancer and can affect a person's daily life in many ways. We do not currently know how often severe fatigue occurs after treatment for childhood cancer, nor which risk factors might be responsible for developing fatigue."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23462
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSchizophrenia is one of the most common and disabling mental disorders. About 20% of people with schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotics, which are the mainstay of the treatment for schizophrenia today, and need to seek other treatment options. Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) is one of the novel non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that are being investigated in recent years.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of MST for people with schizophrenia.\nSearch methods\nOn 6 March 2022, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MST alone or plus standard care with ECT or any other interventions for people with schizophrenia.\nData collection and analysis\nWe performed reference screening, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias and quality assessment in duplicate. We calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the original risk of bias tool for risk of bias assessment and created a Summary of findings table using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included one four-week study with 79 adults in acute schizophrenia, comparing MST plus standard care to ECT plus standard care in this review. We rated the overall risk of bias as high due to high risk of bias in the domains of selective reporting and other biases (early termination and baseline imbalance) and unclear risk of bias in the domain of blinding of participants and personnel.\nWe found that MST and ECT may not differ in improving the global state (n = 79, risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.70), overall (n = 79, mean difference (MD) -0.20, 95% CI -8.08 to 7.68), the positive symptoms (n = 79, MD 1.40, 95% CI -1.97 to 4.77) and the negative symptoms (n = 79, MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.85 to 1.85) in people with schizophrenia.\nWe found that MST compared to ECT may cause less delayed memory deficit and less cognitive deterioration (n = 79, number of people with a delayed memory deficit, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96; n = 79, mean change in global cognitive function, MD 5.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.80), but also may improve more cognitive function (n = 47, number of people with any cognitive improvement, RR 3.30, 95% CI 1.29 to 8.47).\nWe found that there may be no difference between the two groups in terms of leaving the study early due to any reason (n = 79, RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.73 to 8.59), due to adverse effects (n = 79, RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.39 to 28.64) or due to inefficacy (n = 79, RR 2.52, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.10).\nSince all findings were based on one study with high risk of bias and the confidence in the evidence was very low, we were not sure these comparable or favourable effects of MST over ECT were its true effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the paucity of data, we cannot draw any conclusion on the efficacy and tolerability of MST for people with schizophrenia. Well-designed RCTs are warranted to answer the question.\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 MST helps people with schizophrenia.\nWe were interested in:\n- number of people with symptoms improved;\n- number of people with impaired cognitive function;\n- number of people with clinically important side effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23464
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOlder adults are the most sedentary segment of society, often spending in excess of 8.5 hours a day sitting. Large amounts of time spent sedentary, defined as time spend sitting or in a reclining posture without spending energy, has been linked to an increased risk of chronic diseases, frailty, loss of function, disablement, social isolation, and premature death.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour amongst older adults living independently in the community compared to control conditions involving either no intervention or interventions that do not target sedentary behaviour.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, EPPI-Centre databases (Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI) and the Obesity and Sedentary behaviour Database), WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 18 January 2021. We also screened the reference lists of included articles and contacted authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs. We included interventions purposefully designed to reduce sedentary time in older adults (aged 60 or over) living independently in the community. We included studies if some of the participants had multiple comorbidities, but excluded interventions that recruited clinical populations specifically (e.g. stroke survivors).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and full-text articles to determine study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. Any disagreements in study screening or data extraction were settled by a third review author.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies in the review, six RCTs and one cluster-RCT, with a total of 397 participants. The majority of participants were female (n = 284), white, and highly educated. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. All studies evaluated individually based behaviour change interventions using a combination of behaviour change techniques such as goal setting, education, and behaviour monitoring or feedback. Four of the seven studies also measured secondary outcomes. The main sources of bias were related to selection bias (N = 2), performance bias (N = 6), blinding of outcome assessment (N = 2), and incomplete outcome data (N = 2) and selective reporting (N=1). The overall risk of bias was judged as unclear.\nPrimary outcomes\nThe evidence suggests that interventions to change sedentary behaviour in community-dwelling older adults may reduce sedentary time (mean difference (MD) −44.91 min/day, 95% confidence interval (CI) −93.13 to 3.32; 397 participants; 7 studies; I2 = 73%; low-certainty evidence). We could not pool evidence on the effect of interventions on breaks in sedentary behaviour or time spent in specific domains such as TV time, as data from only one study were available for these outcomes.\nSecondary outcomes\nWe are uncertain whether interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour have any impact on the physical or mental health outcomes of community-dwelling older adults. We were able to pool change data for the following outcomes.\n• Physical function (MD 0.14 Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score, 95% CI −0.38 to 0.66; higher score is favourable; 98 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 26%; low-certainty evidence).\n• Waist circumference (MD 1.14 cm, 95% CI −1.64 to 3.93; 100 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence).\n• Fitness (MD -5.16 m in the 6-minute walk test, 95% CI −36.49 to 26.17; higher score is favourable; 80 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence).\n• Blood pressure: systolic (MD −3.91 mmHg, 95% CI -10.95 to 3.13; 138 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 73%; very low-certainty evidence) and diastolic (MD −0.06 mmHg, 95% CI −5.72 to 5.60; 138 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 97%; very low-certainty evidence).\n• Glucose blood levels (MD 2.20 mg/dL, 95% CI −6.46 to 10.86; 100 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence).\nNo data were available on cognitive function, cost-effectiveness or adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is not clear whether interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour are effective at reducing sedentary time in community-dwelling older adults. We are uncertain if these interventions have any impact on the physical or mental health of community-dwelling older adults. There were few studies, and the certainty of the evidence is very low to low, mainly due to inconsistency in findings and imprecision. Future studies should consider interventions aimed at modifying the environment, policy, and social and cultural norms. Future studies should also use device-based measures of sedentary time, recruit larger samples, and gather information about quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and adverse event data.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to January 2021."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23465
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma is a respiratory disease characterised by variable airflow limitation and the presence of respiratory symptoms including wheeze, chest tightness, cough and/or dyspnoea. Exercise training is beneficial for people with asthma; however, the response to conventional models of pulmonary rehabilitation is less clear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate, in adults with asthma, the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care on exercise performance, asthma control, and quality of life (co-primary outcomes), incidence of severe asthma exacerbations/hospitalisations, mental health, muscle strength, physical activity levels, inflammatory biomarkers, and adverse events.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from their inception to May 2021, as well as the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials in which pulmonary rehabilitation was compared to usual care in adults with asthma. Pulmonary rehabilitation must have included a minimum of four weeks (or eight sessions) aerobic training and education or self-management. Co-interventions were permitted; however, exercise training alone was not.\nData collection and analysis\nFollowing the use of Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow, two review authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We contacted study authors to retrieve missing data. We calculated between-group effects via mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) using a random-effects model. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies involving 894 participants (range 24 to 412 participants (n = 2 studies involving n > 100, one contributing to meta-analysis), mean age range 27 to 54 years). We identified one ongoing study and three studies awaiting classification. One study was synthesised narratively, and another involved participants specifically with asthma-COPD overlap. Most programmes were outpatient-based, lasting from three to four weeks (inpatient) or eight to 12 weeks (outpatient). Education or self-management components included breathing retraining and relaxation, nutritional advice and psychological counselling. One programme was specifically tailored for people with severe asthma.\nPulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care may increase maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) after programme completion, but the evidence is very uncertain for data derived using mL/kg/min (MD between groups of 3.63 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48 to 5.77; 3 studies; n = 129) and uncertain for data derived from % predicted VO2 max (MD 14.88%, 95% CI 9.66 to 20.1%; 2 studies; n = 60). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care on incremental shuttle walk test distance (MD between groups 74.0 metres, 95% CI 26.4 to 121.4; 1 study; n = 30). Pulmonary rehabilitation may have little to no effect on VO2 max at longer-term follow up (9 to 12 months), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD −0.69 mL/kg/min, 95% CI −4.79 to 3.42; I2 = 49%; 3 studies; n = 66).\nPulmonary rehabilitation likely improves functional exercise capacity as measured by 6-minute walk distance, with MD between groups after programme completion of 79.8 metres (95% CI 66.5 to 93.1; 5 studies; n = 529; moderate certainty evidence). This magnitude of mean change exceeds the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) threshold for people with chronic respiratory disease. The evidence is very uncertain about the longer-term effects one year after pulmonary rehabilitation for this outcome (MD 52.29 metres, 95% CI 0.7 to 103.88; 2 studies; n = 42).\nPulmonary rehabilitation may result in a small improvement in asthma control compared to usual care as measured by Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), with an MD between groups of −0.46 (95% CI −0.76 to −0.17; 2 studies; n = 93; low certainty evidence); however, data derived from the Asthma Control Test were very uncertain (MD between groups 3.34, 95% CI −2.32 to 9.01; 2 studies; n = 442). The ACQ finding approximates the MCID of 0.5 points. Pulmonary rehabilitation results in little to no difference in asthma control as measured by ACQ at nine to 12 months follow-up (MD 0.09, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.53; 2 studies; n = 48; low certainty evidence).\nPulmonary rehabilitation likely results in a large improvement in quality of life as assessed by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD −18.51, 95% CI −20.77 to −16.25; 2 studies; n = 440; moderate certainty evidence), with this magnitude of change exceeding the MCID. However, pulmonary rehabilitation may have little to no effect on Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) total scores, with the evidence being very uncertain (MD 0.87, 95% CI −0.13 to 1.86; 2 studies; n = 442). Longer-term follow-up data suggested improvements in quality of life may occur as measured by SGRQ (MD −13.4, 95% CI −15.93 to −10.88; 2 studies; n = 430) but not AQLQ (MD 0.58, 95% CI −0.23 to 1.38; 2 studies; n = 435); however, the evidence is very uncertain.\nOne study reported no difference between groups in the proportion of participants who experienced an asthma exacerbation during the intervention period. Data from one study suggest adverse events attributable to the intervention are rare.\nOverall risk of bias was most commonly impacted by performance bias attributed to a lack of participant blinding to knowledge of the intervention. This is inherently challenging to overcome in rehabilitation studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate certainty evidence shows that pulmonary rehabilitation is probably associated with clinically meaningful improvements in functional exercise capacity and quality of life upon programme completion in adults with asthma. The certainty of evidence relating to maximal exercise capacity was very low to low. Pulmonary rehabilitation appears to confer minimal effect on asthma control, although the certainty of evidence is very low to low. Unclear reporting of study methods and small sample sizes limits our certainty in the overall body of evidence, whilst heterogenous study designs and interventions likely contribute to inconsistent findings across clinical outcomes and studies. There remains considerable scope for future research.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Limitations of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our confidence in the evidence relating to outcomes such as physical fitness, wellbeing, and asthma control is limited due to concerns regarding unclear methods in some studies, the potential for participants or assessors (or both) to have influenced outcomes due to the awareness of assigned treatments, and the varied ways in which pulmonary rehabilitation was delivered.\nThe evidence is up-to-date to May 2021."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23466
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMost cases of stroke are caused by impairment of blood flow to the brain (ischaemia), which results in a reduction in available oxygen and subsequent cell death. It has been postulated that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) may reduce the volume of brain that will die by greatly increasing available oxygen, and it may further improve outcomes by reducing brain swelling. Some centres are using HBOT routinely to treat people with stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive HBOT in the treatment of people with acute ischaemic stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched April 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (April 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2014), EMBASE (1980 to April 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to April 2014), the Database of Randomised Controlled Trials in Hyperbaric Medicine (DORCTIHM) (searched April 2014) and the reference lists of articles. We handsearched relevant publications and contacted researchers to identify additional published and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of adjunctive HBOT versus those of no HBOT (no treatment or sham).\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently extracted data, assessed each trial for internal validity and resolved differences by discussion.\nMain results\nWe included 11 RCTs involving 705 participants. The methodological quality of the trials varied. We could pool data only for case fatalities. No significant differences were noted in the case fatality rate at six months in those receiving HBOT compared with the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 2.75, P value 0.96). Four of 14 scale measures of disability and functional performance indicated improvement following HBOT, for example, the mean Trouillas Disability Scale score was lower with HBOT (mean difference (MD) 2.2 point reduction with HBOT, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.3, P value 0.04), and the mean Orgogozo Scale score was higher (MD 27.9 points, 95% CI 4.0 to 51.8, P value 0.02).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no good evidence to show that HBOT improves clinical outcomes when applied during acute presentation of ischaemic stroke. Although evidence from the 11 RCTs is insufficient to provide clear guidelines for practice, the possibility of clinical benefit has not been excluded. Further research is required to better define the role of HBOT in this condition.\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": "Too few patients have been studied to say whether HBOT decreases the chance of dying, and only three trials have suggested improvement in the ability to do everyday tasks. Overall, little evidence is currently available to support the use of HBOT for people with stroke."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23467
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnthracyclines and taxanes are chemotherapeutic agents widely used in a sequential regimen in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment of early breast cancer to reduce the risk of cancer recurrence. Standard practice is to administer anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by a taxane. Anthracyclines tend to be administered first as they were established before taxanes for treatment of early breast cancer.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether the sequence in which anthracyclines and taxanes are administered affects outcomes for people with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 1 February 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing administering a taxane prior to an anthracycline with taxane following anthracycline to people with early breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. The studies needed to have reported on at least one of our outcomes of interest, which included overall survival, disease-free survival, pathological response, treatment adherence, toxicity and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included disease-free survival, pathological response (in the neoadjuvant setting only), adverse events, treatment adherence and quality of life. For time-to-event outcomes of overall survival and disease-free survival, we derived hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where possible. For dichotomous outcomes of pathological complete response, treatment adherence and adverse events, we reported the treatment effect as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI where possible. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence separately for the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.\nMain results\nThere were 1415 participants in five neoadjuvant studies and 280 participants in four adjuvant studies involving five treatment comparisons. Four of the five neoadjuvant studies collected data for the primary outcome (overall survival) and two studies had data available; one of the four adjuvant studies collected overall survival data.\nThe neoadjuvant studies suggested that the administration of taxanes first probably resulted in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.08; 947 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and disease-free survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.09; 828 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Administration of taxanes first also resulted in little to no difference in pathological complete response (absence of cancer in the breast and axilla: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.38; 1280 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). However, there appeared to be a trend in favour of taxanes first. Studies reported treatment adherence using a range of measures. Administration of taxanes first probably did not increase the likelihood of requiring dose reductions compared to administration of anthracyclines first (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.11; 280 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably little to no difference in the risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.82; 280 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) or grade 3/4 neurotoxicity (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.65; 1108 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) when taxanes were given first. There were no data on quality of life.\nOnly one adjuvant study collected data on overall survival and disease-free survival but did not report data. Administration of taxanes first reduced the risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97; 279 participants; 4 studies, 5 treatment comparisons; high-certainty evidence) and appeared to result in little to no difference in grade 3/4 neurotoxicity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.46; 162 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was probably little to no difference in the proportions experiencing dose delays when taxanes are given first compared to anthracyclines given first (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.12; 238 participants; 3 studies, 4 treatment comparisons; moderate-certainty evidence). One study reported on quality of life and indicated that scores (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast Cancer (FACT-B) validated questionnaire) were similar in both groups though did not provide numerical data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn the neoadjuvant setting, there is high- to low-certainty evidence of equivalent outcomes for the sequence in which taxanes are delivered. In the adjuvant setting, none of the studies reported on overall survival or disease-free survival. In most institutions, standard practice would be to deliver anthracycline followed by taxane, and currently available data do not support a change in this practice. We wait for the full-text publication of a relevant neoadjuvant study for women with HER2-negative breast cancer for inclusion in an update 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": "The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to February 2018."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23468
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSolid organ transplantation has seen improvements in both surgical techniques and immunosuppression, achieving prolonged survival. Essential to graft acceptance and post-transplant recovery, immunosuppressive medications are often accompanied by a high prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and side effects. Apart from GI side effects, long-term exposure to immunosuppressive medications has seen an increase in drug-related morbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, and malignancy. Non-adherence to immunosuppression can lead to an increased risk of graft failure.\nRecent research has indicated that any microbial imbalances (otherwise known as gut dysbiosis or leaky gut) may be associated with cardiometabolic diseases in the long term. Current evidence suggests a link between the gut microbiome and the production of putative uraemic toxins, increased gut permeability, and transmural movement of bacteria and endotoxins and inflammation. Early observational and intervention studies have been investigating food-intake patterns, various synbiotic interventions (antibiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics), and faecal transplants to measure their effects on microbiota in treating cardiometabolic diseases. It is believed high doses of synbiotics, prebiotics and probiotics are able to modify and improve dysbiosis of gut micro-organisms by altering the population of the micro-organisms. With the right balance in the gut flora, a primary benefit is believed to be the suppression of pathogens through immunostimulation and gut barrier enhancement (less permeability of the gut).\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics for recipients of solid organ transplantation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 9 March 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials measuring and reporting the effects of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics, in any combination and any formulation given to solid organ transplant recipients (any age and setting). Two authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nData extraction was independently carried out by two authors using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nFive studies (250 participants) were included in this review. Study participants were adults with a kidney (one study) or liver (four studies) transplant. One study compared a synbiotic to placebo, two studies compared a probiotic to placebo, and two studies compared a synbiotic to a prebiotic.\nOverall, the quality of the evidence is poor. Most studies were judged to have unclear (or high) risk of bias across most domains. Of the available evidence, meta-analyses undertaken were of limited data from small studies. Across all comparisons, GRADE evaluations for all outcomes were judged to be very low certainty evidence. Very low certainty evidence implies that we are very uncertain about results (not estimable due to lack of data or poor quality).\nSynbiotics had uncertain effects on the change in microbiota composition (total plasma p-cresol), faecal characteristics, adverse events, kidney function or albumin concentration (1 study, 34 participants) compared to placebo.\nProbiotics had uncertain effects on GI side effects, infection rates immediately post-transplant, liver function, blood pressure, change in fatty liver, and lipids (1 study, 30 participants) compared to placebo.\nSynbiotics had uncertain effects on graft health (acute liver rejection) (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.25; 2 studies, 129 participants; I² = 0%), the use of immunosuppression, infection (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.17; I² = 66%), GI function (time to first bowel movement), adverse events (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.59; I² = 20%), serious adverse events (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.36; I² = 81%), death (2 studies, 129 participants), and organ function measures (2 studies; 129 participants) compared to prebiotics.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review highlights the severe lack of high-quality RCTs testing the efficacy of synbiotics, prebiotics or probiotics in solid organ transplant recipients. We have identified significant gaps in the evidence.\nDespite GI symptoms and postoperative infection being the most common reasons for high antibiotic use in this patient population, along with increased morbidity and the growing antimicrobial resistance, we found very few studies that adequately tested these as alternative treatments.\nThere is currently no evidence to support or refute the use of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics in solid organ transplant recipients, and findings should be viewed with caution.\nWe have identified an area of significant uncertainty about the efficacy of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics in solid organ transplant recipients. Future research in this field requires adequately powered RCTs comparing synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics separately and with placebo measuring a standard set of core transplant outcomes. Six studies are currently ongoing (822 proposed participants); therefore, it is possible that findings may change with their inclusion in future updates.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 5 studies randomising 250 participants. One study looked at kidney transplant patients, and four studies looked at liver transplant patients, mostly taking synbiotics, prebiotics or probiotics within a month after surgery. We are uncertain whether probiotics improve bowel and gut side effects or reduce your chance of getting an infection after the surgery. We are uncertain whether these treatments will help stool characteristics, kidney function, or the amount of immunosuppression medications to take.\nThe quality of the evidence that we found is poor. Three studies were only abstracts (not the full paper and not the full results). All five studies were conducted using moderate to poor quality methods and too few patients."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23469
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPhysicians often prescribe opioids for pain in the acute care setting. Nausea and vomiting are well-described adverse events, occurring in over one-third of patients. Prophylactic antiemetics may be one option to reduce opioid-associated nausea and vomiting. However, these medications also have their own adverse effects, so it is important to understand their efficacy and safety prior to routine use. This is a review of randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care for preventing opioid-associated nausea and vomiting.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of prophylactic antiemetics for nausea and vomiting in adults (aged 16 years or older) receiving intravenous opioids in the acute care setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) from inception to January 2022, and Google Scholar (17 January 2022). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and screened reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials of prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care in adults prior to receiving an intravenous opioid.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (MG, JNC) independently determined the eligibility of each study according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors (MG, GDP) then independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were the occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included nausea severity, number of vomiting episodes, and number of participants requiring antiemetic rescue therapy. We presented outcomes as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (e.g. presence of vomiting, presence of nausea, number of participants requiring rescue medication, adverse events) and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference for continuous data (e.g. number of vomiting episodes, nausea severity) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe included three studies involving 527 participants (187 women and 340 men) with a mean age of 42 years. All studies used intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg) as the intervention and a placebo for the comparator. No studies assessed any other antiemetic or compared the intervention to standard care.\nCompared to placebo, metoclopramide did not reduce vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.32; low-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; low-certainty evidence) and there was no difference in adverse events (RR 2.34, 95% CI 0.47 to 11.61; low-certainty evidence). No data were available regarding the number of vomiting episodes. Metoclopramide did reduce the severity of nausea compared with placebo (MD −0.49, 95% CI −0.75 to −0.23; low-certainty evidence) but did not reduce the need for rescue medication (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.16; low-certainty evidence).\nTwo studies were at unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation, one for blinding of outcome assessors, one for incomplete outcome data, and two for selective reporting. The studies were at low risk of bias for all remaining components.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was no evidence that prophylactic metoclopramide affected the risk of vomiting, nausea, or the need for rescue medication when provided prior to intravenous opioids in the acute care setting. There was a clinically insignificant difference in nausea severity when comparing prophylactic metoclopramide with placebo. Overall, the evidence was of low certainty. Future research could better delineate the effects of prophylactic antiemetics on specific populations, and new studies are needed to evaluate the use of other prophylactic antiemetic agents, for which there were no data.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The studies investigated only one medication (metoclopramide) and did not report all the information we were interested in. The intervention probably makes little or no difference in terms of experiencing nausea or vomiting."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23470
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSupportive interventions such as serving meals in a dining room environment or the use of assistants to feed patients are frequently recommended for the management of nutritionally vulnerable groups. Such interventions are included in many policy and guideline documents and have implications for staff time but may incur additional costs, yet there appears to be a lack of evidence for their efficacy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of supportive interventions for enhancing dietary intake in malnourished or nutritionally at-risk adults.\nSearch methods\nWe identified publications from comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Science databases, scrutiny of the reference lists of included trials and related systematic reviews and handsearching the abstracts of relevant meetings. The date of the last search for all databases was 31 March 2013. Additional searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were undertaken to September 2016. The date of the last search for these databases was 14 September 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of supportive interventions given with the aim of enhancing dietary intake in nutritionally vulnerable adults compared with usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors and for the final search, the editor, selected trials from titles and abstracts and independently assessed eligibility of selected trials. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias, as well as evaluating overall quality of the evidence utilising the GRADE instrument, and then agreed as they entered data into the review. The likelihood of clinical heterogeneity amongst trials was judged to be high as trials were in populations with widely different clinical backgrounds, conducted in different healthcare settings and despite some grouping of similar interventions, involved interventions that varied considerably. We were only able, therefore, to conduct meta-analyses for the outcome measures, 'all-cause mortality', 'hospitalisation' and 'nutritional status (weight change)'.\nMain results\nForty-one trials (10,681 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials were grouped according to similar interventions (changes to organisation of nutritional care (N = 13; 3456 participants), changes to the feeding environment (N = 5; 351 participants), modification of meal profile or pattern (N = 12; 649 participants), additional supplementation of meals (N = 10; 6022 participants) and home meal delivery systems (N = 1; 203 participants). Follow-up ranged from ‘duration of hospital stay’ to 12 months.\nThe overall quality of evidence was moderate to very low, with the majority of trials judged to be at an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. The risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality was 0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92); P = 0.004; 12 trials; 6683 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This translates into 26 (95% CI 9 to 41) fewer cases of death per 1000 participants in favour of supportive interventions. The RR for number of participants with any medical complication ranged from 1.42 in favour of control compared with 0.59 in favour of supportive interventions (very low-quality evidence). Only five trials (4451 participants) investigated health-related quality of life showing no substantial differences between intervention and comparator groups. Information on patient satisfaction was unreliable. The effects of supportive interventions versus comparators on hospitalisation showed a mean difference (MD) of -0.5 days (95% CI -2.6 to 1.6); P = 0.65; 5 trials; 667 participants; very low-quality evidence. Only three of 41 included trials (4108 participants; very low-quality evidence) reported on adverse events, describing intolerance to the supplement (diarrhoea, vomiting; 5/34 participants) and discontinuation of oral nutritional supplements because of refusal or dislike of taste (567/2017 participants). Meta-analysis across 17 trials with adequate data on weight change revealed an overall improvement in weight in favour of supportive interventions versus control: MD 0.6 kg (95% CI 0.21 to 1.02); 2024 participants; moderate-quality evidence. A total of 27 trials investigated nutritional intake with a majority of trials not finding marked differences in energy intake between intervention and comparator groups. Only three trials (1152 participants) reported some data on economic costs but did not use accepted health economic methods (very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence of moderate to very low quality to suggest that supportive interventions to improve nutritional care results in minimal weight gain. Most of the evidence for the lower risk of all-cause mortality for supportive interventions comes from hospital-based trials and more research is needed to confirm this effect. There is very low-quality evidence regarding adverse effects; therefore whilst some of these interventions are advocated at a national level clinicians should recognise the lack of clear evidence to support their role. This review highlights the importance of assessing patient-important outcomes in future research.\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": "Serving meals in a dining room, or the use of assistance to help feed people in need and other similar methods are often recommended to help especially sick and elderly people who have lost or are likely to lose weight (nutritionally vulnerable groups). Such supportive interventions are implemented in the health care in many countries but their effects are not well investigated."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23471
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB.\nSearch methods\nWe searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nThe inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment-induced) causes for their HMB.\nData collection and analysis\nWe identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis.\nMain results\nAs a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs, but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system.\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 investigated whether non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) helped reduce heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in women before they reach the menopause."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23472
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).\nMethods\nWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.\nMain results\nThis update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.\nBased on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).\nBased on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.\nMain results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Serious Adverse Events\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Ten more people out of 1000 who took biologics + MTX/DMARD had serious adverse events (1% more serious adverse events).\nSeventy-eight patients out of 1000 who took biologics + MTX/DMARD had serious adverse events compared to 68 people out of 1000 who were on MTX/DMARD/placebo; most common were infections."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23473
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHuman milk banking has been available in many countries for the last three decades. The milk provided from milk banking is predominantly term breast milk, but some milk banks provide preterm breast milk. There are a number of differences between donor term and donor preterm human milk.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of banked donor preterm milk compared with banked donor term milk regarding growth and developmental outcomes in very low birth weight infants (infants weighing less than 1500 grams).\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 23 October 2018), Embase (1980 to 23 October 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 23 October 2018). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing banked donor preterm milk with banked donor term milk regarding growth and developmental outcomes in very low birth weight infants\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to perform assessment of methodology regarding blinding of randomisation, intervention and outcome measurements as well as completeness of follow-up. We planned to evaluate treatment effect using a fixed-effect model using relative risk (RR), relative risk reduction, risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for categorical data; and using mean, standard deviation and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nNo studies met the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence to support or refute the effect of banked donor preterm milk compared to banked term milk regarding growth and developmental outcomes in very low birth weight infants.\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": "Donor-expressed milk processed by human milk banks has been used to provide preterm infants with breast milk when there are circumstances that preclude the use of mother's own milk. Preterm milk differs significantly from term breast milk. The processes involved in providing donor milk, including freezing, thawing and pasteurisation has adverse effects on nutritional and non-nutritional aspects of donor milk. Donor milk is expensive. We wished to determine whether the benefits of preterm donor milk were superior to term donor milk either as a sole diet, or as a supplement to mother's own milk."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23474
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychosocial treatment that aims to help individuals re-evaluate their appraisals of their experiences that can affect their level of distress and problematic behaviour. CBT is now recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as an add-on treatment for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Other psychosocial therapies that are often less expensive are also available as an add-on treatment for people with schizophrenia. This review is also part of a family of Cochrane Reviews on CBT for people with schizophrenia.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of CBT compared with other psychosocial therapies as add-on treatments for people with schizophrenia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study Based Register of Trials (latest 6 March, 2017). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with schizophrenia who were randomly allocated to receive, in addition to their standard care, either CBT or any other psychosocial therapy. Outcomes of interest included relapse, global state, mental state, adverse events, social functioning, quality of life and satisfaction with treatment. We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data.\nData collection and analysis\nWe reliably screened references and selected trials. Review authors, working independently, assessed trials for methodological quality and extracted data from included studies. We analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 60% completion rate. Where possible, for binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model for analyses unless there was unexplained high heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table for our main outcomes of interest.\nMain results\nThe review now includes 36 trials with 3542 participants, comparing CBT with a range of other psychosocial therapies that we classified as either active (A) (n = 14) or non active (NA) (n = 14). Trials were often small and at high or unclear risk of bias. When CBT was compared with other psychosocial therapies, no difference in long-term relapse was observed (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 375; studies = 5, low-quality evidence). Clinically important change in global state data were not available but data for rehospitalisation were reported. Results showed no clear difference in long term rehospitalisation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.14; participants = 943; studies = 8, low-quality evidence) nor in long term mental state (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; participants = 249; studies = 4, low-quality evidence). No long-term differences were observed for death (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.98; participants = 627; studies = 6, low-quality evidence). Only average endpoint scale scores were available for social functioning and quality of life. Social functioning scores were similar between groups (long term Social Functioning Scale (SFS): MD 8.80, 95% CI -4.07 to 21.67; participants = 65; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence), and quality of life scores were also similar (medium term Modular System for Quality of Life (MSQOL): MD -4.50, 95% CI -15.66 to 6.66; participants = 64; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There was a modest but clear difference favouring CBT for satisfaction with treatment - measured as leaving the study early (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; participants = 2392; studies = 26, low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence based on data from randomised controlled trials indicates there is no clear and convincing advantage for cognitive behavioural therapy over other - and sometimes much less sophisticated and expensive - psychosocial therapies for people with schizophrenia. It should be noted that although much research has been carried out in this area, the quality of evidence available is mainly low or of very low quality. Good quality research is needed before firm conclusions can be made.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Searches\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The Information Specialist of Cochrane Schizophrenia searched their specialised register for trials that allocated people with schizophrenia to receive either CBT or another type of psychosocial treatment, up to March 2017. These searches found 4117 records. The review authors inspected and screened these records."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23475
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPancreatoduodenectomy is a surgical procedure used to treat diseases of the pancreatic head and, less often, the duodenum. The most common disease treated is cancer, but pancreatoduodenectomy is also used for people with traumatic lesions and chronic pancreatitis. Following pancreatoduodenectomy, the pancreatic stump must be connected with the small bowel where pancreatic juice can play its role in food digestion. Pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreatogastrostomy (PG) are surgical procedures commonly used to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy. Both of these procedures have a non-negligible rate of postoperative complications. Since it is unclear which procedure is better, there are currently no international guidelines on how to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy, and the choice is based on the surgeon's personal preference.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pancreaticogastrostomy compared to pancreaticojejunostomy on postoperative pancreatic fistula in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 September 2016), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 September 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to 30 September 2016). We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and screened references of eligible articles and systematic reviews on this subject. There were no language or publication date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical outcomes of PJ compared to PG in people undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed descriptive analyses of the included RCTs for the primary (rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula and mortality) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, rate of surgical re-intervention, overall rate of surgical complications, rate of postoperative bleeding, rate of intra-abdominal abscess, quality of life, cost analysis). We used a random-effects model for all analyses. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (using PG as the reference) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as a measure of variability.\nMain results\nWe included 10 RCTs that enrolled a total of 1629 participants. The characteristics of all studies matched the requirements to compare the two types of surgical reconstruction following pancreatoduodenectomy. All studies reported incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (the main complication) and postoperative mortality.\nOverall, the risk of bias in included studies was high; only one included study was assessed at low risk of bias.\nThere was little or no difference between PJ and PG in overall risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (PJ 24.3%; PG 21.4%; RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; 7 studies; low-quality evidence). Inclusion of studies that clearly distinguished clinically significant pancreatic fistula resulted in us being uncertain whether PJ improved the risk of pancreatic fistula when compared with PG (19.3% versus 12.8%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.47; very low-quality evidence). PJ probably has little or no difference from PG in risk of postoperative mortality (3.9% versus 4.8%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; moderate-quality evidence).\nWe found low-quality evidence that PJ may differ little from PG in length of hospital stay (MD 1.04 days, 95% CI -1.18 to 3.27; 4 studies, N = 502) or risk of surgical re-intervention (11.6% versus 10.3%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; 7 studies, N = 1263). We found moderate-quality evidence suggesting little difference between PJ and PG in terms of risk of any surgical complication (46.5% versus 44.5%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 9 studies, N = 1513). PJ may slightly improve the risk of postoperative bleeding (9.3% versus 13.8%; RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.93; low-quality evidence; 8 studies, N = 1386), but may slightly worsen the risk of developing intra-abdominal abscess (14.7% versus 8.0%; RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.81; 7 studies, N = 1121; low quality evidence). Only one study reported quality of life (N = 320); PG may improve some quality of life parameters over PJ (low-quality evidence). No studies reported cost analysis data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no reliable evidence to support the use of pancreatojejunostomy over pancreatogastrostomy. Future large international studies may shed new light on this field of investigation.\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 could not demonstrate that one surgical procedure is better than the other. PJ may have little or no difference from PG in overall postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (PJ 24.3%; PG 21.4%), duration of hospitalization, or need for surgical re-intervention (11.6% versus 10.3%). Only seven studies clearly distinguished clinically significant pancreatic fistula which required a change in the patient's management. We are uncertain whether PJ improves the risk of clinically significant pancreatic fistula when compared with PG (19.3% versus 12.8%). PJ probably has little or no difference from PG in rates of death (3.9% versus 4.8%) or complications (46.5% versus 44.5%). The risk of postoperative bleeding in participants undergoing PJ was slightly lower than those undergoing PG (9.3% versus 13.8%), but this benefit appeared to be balanced with a higher risk of developing an abdominal abscess in PJ participants (14.7% versus 8.0%). Only one study reported quality of life; PG may be better than PJ in some quality of life parameters. Cost data were not reported in any studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23476
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBreast cancer continues to be the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women globally. Early detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer are key to better outcomes. Since many women will discover a breast cancer symptom themselves, it is important that they are breast cancer aware i.e. have the knowledge, skills and confidence to detect breast changes and present promptly to a healthcare professional.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register (searched 25 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 27 January 2016), MEDLINE OvidSP (2008 to 27 January 2016), Embase (Embase.com, 2008 to 27 January 2016), the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 27 Feburary 2016). We also searched the reference lists of identified articles and reviews and the grey literature for conference proceedings and published abstracts. No language restriction was applied.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on interventions for raising women’s breast cancer awareness i.e. knowledge of potential breast cancer symptoms/changes and the confidence to look at and feel their breasts, using any means of delivery, i.e. one-to-one/group/mass media campaign(s).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors selected studies, independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We reported the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD) for continuous outcomes. Since it was not possible to combine data from included studies due to their heterogeneity, we present a narrative synthesis. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs involving 997 women: one RCT (867 women) randomised women to receive either a written booklet and usual care (intervention group 1), a written booklet and usual care plus a verbal interaction with a radiographer or research psychologist (intervention group 2) or usual care (control group); and the second RCT (130 women) randomised women to either an educational programme (three sessions of 60 to 90 minutes) or no intervention (control group).\nKnowledge of breast cancer symptoms\nIn the first study, knowledge of non-lump symptoms increased in intervention group 1 compared to the control group at two years postintervention, but not significantly (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.6; P = 0.66; 449 women; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, at two years postintervention, knowledge of symptoms increased in the intervention group 2 compared to the control group but not significantly (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.1; P = 0.11; 434 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, women’s awareness of breast cancer symptoms had increased one month post intervention in the educational group (MD 3.45, SD 5.11; 65 women; low-quality evidence) compared to the control group (MD −0.68, SD 5.93; 65 women; P < 0.001), where there was a decrease in awareness.\nKnowledge of age-related risk\nIn the first study, women’s knowledge of age-related risk of breast cancer increased, but not significantly, in intervention group 1 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.8; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.5; P < 0.08; 447 women; moderate-quality evidence). Women's knowledge of risk increased significantly in intervention group 2 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 4.8, 95% CI 2.6 to 9.0; P < 0.001; 431 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, women’s perceived susceptibility (how at risk they considered themselves) to breast cancer had increased significantly one month post intervention in the educational group (MD 1.31, SD 3.57; 65 women; low-quality evidence) compared to the control group (MD −0.55, SD 3.31; 65 women; P = 0.005), where a decrease in perceived susceptibility was noted.\nFrequency of Breast Checking\nIn the first study, no significant change was noted for intervention group 1 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.6; P = 0.54; 457 women; moderate-quality evidence). Monthly breast checking increased, but not significantly, in intervention group 2 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.9; P = 0.14; 445 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, women’s breast cancer preventive behaviours increased significantly one month post intervention in the educational group (MD 1.21, SD 2.54; 65 women; low-quality evidence) compared to the control group (MD 0.15, SD 2.94; 65 women; P < 0.045).\nBreast Cancer Awareness\nWomen’s overall breast cancer awareness did not change in intervention group 1 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.6 to 5.30; P = 0.32; 435 women; moderate-quality evidence) while overall awareness increased in the intervention group 2 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 8.1, 95% CI 2.7 to 25.0; P < 0.001; 420 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, there was a significant increase in scores on the Health Belief Model (that included the constructs of awareness and perceived susceptibility) at one month postintervention in the educational group (mean 1.21, SD 2.54; 65 women) compared to the control group (mean 0.15, SD 2.94; 65 women; P = 0.045).\nNeither study reported outcomes relating to motivation to check their breasts, confidence to seek help, time from breast symptom discovery to presentation to a healthcare professional, intentions to seek help, quality of life, adverse effects of the interventions, stages of breast cancer, survival estimates or breast cancer mortality rates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the results of two RCTs, a brief intervention has the potential to increase women’s breast cancer awareness. However, findings of this review should be interpreted with caution, as GRADE assessment identified moderate-quality evidence in only one of the two studies reviewed. In addition, the included trials were heterogeneous in terms of the interventions, population studied and outcomes measured. Therefore, current evidence cannot be generalised to the wider context. Further studies including larger samples, validated outcome measures and longitudinal approaches are warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Self-reported breast checking\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In PEP: women's reported monthly breast checking increased, but not significantly, at 2 years postintervention compared to usual care. In ZUMS: women's reported \"breast cancer preventive behaviours\" increased one month after the intervention. Specifically, this refers to their positive beliefs towards breast self-examining behaviour."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23477
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe success of digital replantation is highly dependent on the patency of the repaired vessels after microvascular anastomosis. Antithrombotic agents are frequently used for preventing vascular occlusion. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been reported to be as effective as unfractionated heparin (UFH) in peripheral vascular surgery, but with fewer adverse effects. Its benefit in microvascular surgery such as digital replantation is unclear. This is an update of the review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess if treatment with subcutaneous LMWH improves the salvage rate of the digits in patients with digital replantation after traumatic amputation.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers, to 17 March 2020. The authors searched PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Chinese Electronic Periodical Services (CEPS) on 17 March 2020 and sought additional trials from reference lists of relevant publications.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing treatment with LMWH versus any other treatment in participants who received digital replantation following traumatic digital amputation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (PL, CC) independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included two new randomised trials in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to four. They included a total of 258 participants, with at least 273 digits, from hospitals in China. Three studies compared LMWH versus UFH, and one compared LMWH versus no LMWH. The mean age of participants ranged from 24.5 to 37.6 years. In the studies reporting the sex of participants, there were a total of 145 men and 59 women. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low or very low because all studies were at high risk of performance or reporting bias (or both) and there was imprecision in the results due to the small numbers of participants.\nThe three studies comparing LMWH versus UFH reported the success rate of replantation using different units of analysis (participant or digit), so we were unable to combine data from all three studies (one study reported results for both participants and digits). No evidence of a benefit in success of replantation was seen in the LMWH group when compared with UFH, regardless of whether the outcomes were reported by number of participants (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.10; 130 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); or by number of digits (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 200 digits, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the incidence of compromised microcirculation requiring surgical or non-surgical therapy, or any systemic/other causes of microvascular insufficiency. There was no evidence of a clear difference between the LMWH and UFH groups in occurrence of arterial occlusion (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.10; 54 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or venous occlusion (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.27; 54 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies reported adverse effects. The LMWH and UFH groups showed no evidence of a difference in wound bleeding (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.23; 130 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), haematuria (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.11; 130 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), ecchymoses (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.19; 130 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), epistaxis (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.32; 130 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), gingival bleeding (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.43; 130 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and faecal occult blood (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.31; 130 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We could not pool data on coagulation abnormalities as varying definitions and tests were used in the three studies.\nOne study compared LMWH versus no LMWH. The success rate of replantation, when analysed by digits, was reported as 91.2% success in the LMWH group and 82.1% in the control group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.33; 73 digits, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Compromised microcirculation requiring surgical re-exploration, analysed by digits, was 11.8% in the LMWH group and 17.9% in the control group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.58; 73 digits, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Compromised microcirculation requiring incision occurred in five out of 34 digits (14.7%) in the LMWH group and eight out of 39 digits (20.5%) in the control group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.98; 73 digits; very low-certainty evidence). Microvascular insufficiency due to arterial occlusion, analysed by digits, was 11.8% in the LMWH group and 17.9% in the control group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.05; 73 digits, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and venous occlusion was 14.7% in the LMWH group and 20.5% in the control (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.98; 73 digits, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report complications or adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently low to very low-certainty evidence, based on four RCTs, suggesting no evidence of a benefit from LMWH when compared to UFH on the success rates of replantation or affect microvascular insufficiency due to vessel occlusion (analysed by digit or participant). LMWH had similar success rates of replantation; and the incidence rate of venous and arterial microvascular insufficiency showed no evidence of a difference between groups when LMWH was compared to no LMWH (analysed by digit). Similar rates of complications and adverse effects were seen between UFH and LMWH. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on any effect on coagulation when comparing LMWH to UFH or no LMWH. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded due to performance and reporting bias, as well as imprecision in the results. Further adequately powered studies are warranted to provide high-certainty evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The overall certainty of evidence is very low due to limitations in study design and reporting. For example, the studies did not take measures to hide from a person which treatment they had, and they reported results that were not stated in the original plan. The sample size of included studies was not large enough to provide precise effect estimates. There is a need for large studies that are designed to reduce these study limitations."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23478
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnaemia is a condition in which the number of red blood cells is insufficient to meet physiologic needs; it is caused by many conditions, particularly iron deficiency. Traditionally, daily iron supplementation has been a standard practice for preventing and treating anaemia. However, its long-term use has been limited, as it has been associated with adverse side effects such as nausea, constipation, and teeth staining. Intermittent iron supplementation has been suggested as an effective and safer alternative to daily iron supplementation for preventing and reducing anaemia at the population level, especially in areas where this condition is highly prevalent.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of intermittent oral iron supplementation, alone or in combination with other nutrients, on anaemia and its associated impairments among menstruating women, compared with no intervention, a placebo, or daily supplementation.\nSearch methods\nIn February 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, and two trials registers. In March 2018, we also searched LILACS, IBECS and IMBIOMED. In addition, we examined reference lists, and contacted authors and known experts to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with either individual or cluster randomisation. Participants were menstruating women; that is, women beyond menarche and prior to menopause who were not pregnant or lactating and did not have a known condition that impeded the presence of menstrual periods. The intervention was the use of iron supplements intermittently (one, two or three times a week on non-consecutive days) compared with placebo, no intervention, or the same supplements provided on a daily basis.\nData collection and analysis\nBoth review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data from included studies, checked data entry for accuracy, assessed the risk of bias of the included studies, and rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 25 studies involving 10,996 women. Study methods were not well described in many of the included studies and thus assessing risk of bias was difficult. The main limitations of the studies were lack of blinding and high attrition. Studies were mainly funded by international organisations, universities, and ministries of health within the countries. Approximately one third of the included studies did not provide a funding source.\nAlthough quality across studies was variable, the results consistently showed that intermittent iron supplementation (alone or with any other vitamins and minerals) compared with no intervention or a placebo, reduced the risk of having anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.87; 11 studies, 3135 participants; low-quality evidence), and improved the concentration of haemoglobin (mean difference (MD) 5.19 g/L, 95% CI 3.07 to 7.32; 15 studies, 2886 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and ferritin (MD 7.46 μg/L, 95% CI 5.02 to 9.90; 7 studies, 1067 participants; low-quality evidence). Intermittent regimens may also reduce the risk of having iron deficiency (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04; 3 studies, 624 participants; low-quality evidence), but evidence was inconclusive regarding iron deficiency anaemia (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.16; 1 study, 97 participants; very low-quality evidence) and all-cause morbidity (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; 1 study, 119 participants; very low-quality evidence). Women in the control group were less likely to have any adverse side effects than those receiving intermittent iron supplements (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.31 to 12.72; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nIn comparison with daily supplementation, results showed that intermittent supplementation (alone or with any other vitamins and minerals) produced similar effects to daily supplementation (alone or with any other vitamins and minerals) on anaemia (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; 8 studies, 1749 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Intermittent supplementation may produce similar haemoglobin concentrations (MD 0.43 g/L, 95% CI −1.44 to 2.31; 10 studies, 2127 participants; low-quality evidence) but lower ferritin concentrations on average (MD −6.07 μg/L, 95% CI −10.66 to −1.48; 4 studies, 988 participants; low-quality evidence) compared to daily supplementation. Compared to daily regimens, intermittent regimens may also reduce the risk of having iron deficiency (RR 4.30, 95% CI 0.56 to 33.20; 1 study, 198 participants; very low-quality evidence). Women receiving iron supplements intermittently were less likely to have any adverse side effects than those receiving iron supplements daily (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.82; 6 studies, 1166 participants; moderate-quality evidence). No studies reported on the effect of intermittent regimens versus daily regimens on iron deficiency anaemia and all-cause morbidity.\nInformation on disease outcomes, adherence, economic productivity, and work performance was scarce, and evidence about the effects of intermittent supplementation on these outcomes unclear.\nOverall, whether the supplements were given once or twice weekly, for less or more than three months, contained less or more than 60 mg of elemental iron per week, or given to populations with different degrees of anaemia at baseline did not seem to affect the findings. Furthermore, the response did not differ in areas where malaria was frequent, although very few trials were conducted in these settings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIntermittent iron supplementation may reduce anaemia and may improve iron stores among menstruating women in populations with different anaemia and malaria backgrounds. In comparison with daily supplementation, the provision of iron supplements intermittently is probably as effective in preventing or controlling anaemia. More information is needed on morbidity (including malaria outcomes), side effects, work performance, economic productivity, depression, and adherence to the intervention. The quality of this evidence base ranged from very low to moderate quality, suggesting that we are uncertain about these effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Intermittent iron supplementation in menstruating women may be an effective intervention for reducing anaemia and improving haemoglobin concentrations compared to no treatment, placebo or daily supplementation. Intermittent supplementation may be associated with fewer side effects compared to daily supplementation. The findings were not affected by whether the supplements were given once or twice weekly, for less or more than three months, contained less or more than 60 mg of elemental iron per week, or given to populations with different degrees of anaemia at baseline (starting point for comparisons). The evidence base was of overall low quality."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23479
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most common paediatric soft-tissue sarcoma and can emerge throughout the whole body. For patients with newly diagnosed RMS, prognosis for survival depends on multiple factors such as histology, tumour site, and extent of the disease. Patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis have impaired prognosis compared to those with localised disease. Appropriate staging at diagnosis therefore plays an important role in choosing the right treatment regimen for an individual patient.\nFluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is a functional molecular imaging technique that uses the increased glycolysis of cancer cells to visualise both structural information and metabolic activity. 18F-FDG-PET combined with computed tomography (CT) could help to accurately stage the extent of disease in patients with newly diagnosed RMS. In this review we aimed to evaluate whether 18F-FDG-PET could replace other imaging modalities for the staging of distant metastases in RMS.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging for the detection of bone, lung, and lymph node metastases in RMS patients at first diagnosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE in PubMed (from 1966 to 23 December 2020) and Embase in Ovid (from 1980 to 23 December 2020) for potentially relevant studies. We also checked the reference lists of relevant studies and review articles; scanned conference proceedings; and contacted the authors of included studies and other experts in the field of RMS for information about any ongoing or unpublished studies. We did not impose any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cross-sectional studies involving patients with newly diagnosed proven RMS, either prospective or retrospective, if they reported the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing lymph node involvement or bone metastases or lung metastases or a combination of these metastases. We included studies that compared the results of the 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging with those of histology or with evaluation by a multidisciplinary tumour board as reference standard.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessement according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). We analysed data for the three outcomes (nodal involvement and lung and bone metastases) separately. We used data from the 2 × 2 tables (consisting of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives) to calculate sensitivity and specificity in each study and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. We did not consider a formal meta-analysis to be relevant because of the small number of studies and substantial heterogeneity between studies.\nMain results\nTwo studies met our inclusion criteria. The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT was reported in both studies, which included a total of 36 participants. We considered both studies to be at high risk of bias for the domain reference standard. We considered one study to be at high risk of bias for the domain index test and flow and timing. Sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases was 100% in both studies (95% confidence interval (CI) for sensitivity was 29% to 100% in study one and 40% to 100% in study two; 95% CI for specificity was 83% to 100% in study one and 66% to 100% in study two). The reported sensitivity of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the detection of lung metastases was not calculated since only two participants in study two showed lung metastases, of which one was detected by 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Reported specificity was 96% in study one (95% CI 78% to 100%) and 100% (95% CI 72% to 100%) in study two. The reported sensitivity for the detection of nodal involvement was 100% (95% CI 63% to 100% in study one and 40% to 100% in study two); the reported specificity was 100% (95% CI 78% to 100%) in study one and 89% (95% CI 52% to 100%) in study two.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the detection of bone, lung, and lymph node metastases was reported in only two studies including a total of only 36 participants with newly diagnosed RMS. Because of the small number of studies (and participants), there is currently insufficient evidence to reliably determine the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the detection of distant metastases. Larger series evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the detection of metastases in patients with RMS are necessary.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to find out how accurate 18F-FDG-PET/CT is for the detection of bone and lung metastases and lymph node involvement in patients with newly diagnosed RMS."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23480
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDialysis treatments weigh heavily on patients' physical and psychosocial health. Multiple studies have assessed the potential for exercise training to improve outcomes in adults undergoing dialysis. However, uncertainties exist in its relevance and sustainable benefits for patient-important outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and safety of regular structured exercise training in adults undergoing dialysis on patient-important outcomes including death, cardiovascular events, fatigue, functional capacity, pain, and depression. We also aimed to define the optimal prescription of exercise in adults undergoing dialysis.\nSearch methods\nIn this update, we conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 23 December 2020. The Register includes studies identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as kidney-related journals and the proceedings of major kidney conferences.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any structured exercise programs of eight weeks or more in adults undergoing maintenance dialysis compared to no exercise or sham exercise.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed the search results for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Whenever appropriate, we performed random-effects meta-analyses of the mean difference in outcomes. The primary outcomes were death (any cause), cardiovascular events and fatigue. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depression, pain, functional capacity, blood pressure, adherence to the exercise program, and intervention-related adverse events.\nMain results\nWe identified 89 studies involving 4291 randomised participants, of which 77 studies (3846 participants) contributed to the meta-analyses. Seven studies included adults undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Fifty-six studies reported aerobic exercise interventions, 21 resistance exercise interventions and 19 combined aerobic and resistance training within the same study arm. The interventions lasted from eight weeks to two years and most often took place thrice weekly during dialysis treatments. A single study reported death and no study reported long-term cardiovascular events. Five studies directly assessed fatigue, 46 reported HRQoL and 16 reported fatigue or pain through their assessment of HRQoL. Thirty-five studies assessed functional capacity, and 21 reported resting peripheral blood pressure. Twelve studies reported adherence to exercise sessions, and nine reported exercise-related adverse events. Overall, the quality of the included studies was low and blinding of the participants was generally not feasible due to the nature of the intervention.\nExercise had uncertain effects on death, cardiovascular events, and the mental component of HRQoL due to the very low certainty of evidence. Compared with sham or no exercise, exercise training for two to 12 months may improve fatigue in adults undergoing dialysis, however, a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Any exercise training for two to 12 months may improve the physical component of HRQoL (17 studies, 656 participants: MD 4.12, 95% CI 1.88 to 6.37 points on 100 points-scale; I² = 49%; low certainty evidence). Any exercise training for two to 12 months probably improves depressive symptoms (10 studies, 441 participants: SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.22; I² = 77%; moderate certainty evidence) and the magnitude of the effect may be greater when maintaining the exercise beyond four months (6 studies, 311 participants: SMD -0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to -0.74; I² = 71%). Any exercise training for three to 12 months may improve pain (15 studies, 872 participants: MD 5.28 95% CI -0.12 to 10.69 points on 100 points-scale; I² = 63%: low certainty evidence) however, the 95% CI indicates that exercise training may make little or no difference in the level of pain. Any exercise training for two to six months probably improves functional capacity as it increased the distance reached during six minutes of walking (19 studies, 827 participants: MD 49.91 metres, 95% CI 37.22 to 62.59; I² = 34%; moderate certainty evidence) and the number of sit-to-stand cycles performed in 30 seconds (MD 2.33 cycles, 95% CI 1.71 to 2.96; moderate certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence to assess the safety of exercise training for adults undergoing maintenance dialysis. The results were similar for aerobic exercise, resistance exercise, and a combination of both aerobic and resistance exercise.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is uncertain whether exercise training improves death, cardiovascular events, or the mental component of HRQoL in adults undergoing maintenance dialysis. Exercise training probably improves depressive symptoms, particularly when the intervention is maintained beyond four months. Exercise training is also likely to improve functional capacity. Low certainty evidence suggested that exercise training may improve fatigue, the physical component of quality of life, and pain. The safety of exercise training for adults undergoing dialysis remains uncertain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 89 studies involving 4291 participants. The exercise training programs lasted from eight weeks to two years and most often took place three times a week during the dialysis treatment. We could not determine the impact of exercise training on death, cardiovascular events (such as a heart attack) or mental well-being. Moderate certainty evidence suggested that exercise training of any type is likely to improve depressive symptoms in adults undergoing dialysis, particularly when the exercise was maintained for longer than four months. Moderate quality evidence also suggested that exercise training may improve people's capacity to perform activities and tasks through the improvement of their capacity to walk and the strength and endurance of their legs. Exercise training may also improve fatigue and the physical aspects of quality of life, but the quality of the evidence was low. We could not conclude on the effect of exercise training on a person's mental well-being."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23481
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent neurobiological condition, characterised by behavioral and cognitive symptoms such as inattention, impulsivity and/or excessive activity. The syndrome is commonly accompanied by psychiatric comorbidities and is associated with educational and occupational underachievement.\nAlthough psychostimulant medications are the mainstay of treatment for ADHD, not all adults respond optimally to, or can tolerate, these medicines. Thus, alternative non-stimulant treatment approaches for ADHD have been explored. One of these alternatives is bupropion, an aminoketone antidepressant and non-competitive antagonism of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Bupropion is registered for the treatment of depression and smoking cessation, but is also used off-label to treat ADHD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of bupropion for the treatment of adults with ADHD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases in February 2017. We also searched three trials registers and three online theses portals. In addition, we checked references of included studies and contacted study authors to identify potentially relevant studies that were missed by our search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects (including adverse effects) of bupropion compared to placebo in adults with ADHD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (WV, GB) independently screened records and extracted data using a data extraction sheet that we tested in a pilot study. We extracted all relevant data on study characteristics and results. We assessed risks of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used a fixed-effect model to pool the results across studies.\nMain results\nWe included six studies with a total of 438 participants. Five studies were conducted in the USA, and one in Iran. All studies evaluated a long-acting version of bupropion, with the dosage ranging from 150 mg up to 450 mg daily. Study intervention length varied from six to 10 weeks. Four studies explicitly excluded participants with psychiatric comorbidity and one study included only participants with opioid dependency. Four studies were funded by industry, but the impact of this on study results is unknown. Two studies were publicly funded and in one of these studies, the lead author was a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies and also received investigator-driven funding from two companies, however none of these companies manufacture bupropion. We judged none of the studies to be free of bias because for most risk of bias domains the study reports failed to provide sufficient details. Using the GRADE approach, we rated the overall quality of evidence as low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence because of serious risk of bias and serious imprecision due to small sample sizes.\nWe found low-quality evidence that bupropion decreased the severity of ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.86 to -0.15, 3 studies, 129 participants), and increased the proportion of participants achieving clinical improvement (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.99, 4 studies, 315 participants), and reporting an improvement on the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement scale (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.50, 5 studies, 337 participants). There was low-quality evidence that the proportion of participants who withdrew due to any adverse effect was similar in the bupropion and placebo groups (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.10, 3 studies, 253 participants). The results were very similar when using a random-effects model and when we analysed only studies that excluded participants with a psychiatric comorbidity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings of this review, which compared bupropion to placebo for adult ADHD, indicate a possible benefit of bupropion. We found low-quality evidence that bupropion decreased the severity of ADHD symptoms and moderately increased the proportion of participants achieving a significant clinical improvement in ADHD symptoms. Furthermore, we found low-quality evidence that the tolerability of bupropion is similar to that of placebo. In the pharmacological treatment of adults with ADHD, extended- or sustained-release bupropion may be an alternative to stimulants. The low-quality evidence indicates uncertainty with respect to the pooled effect estimates. Further research is very likely to change these estimates. More research is needed to reach more definite conclusions as well as clarifying the optimal target population for this medicine. Treatment response remains to be reported in a DSM5-diagnosed population. There is also a lack of knowledge on long-term outcomes.\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 in this review is low, because we found very few studies; five of the six studies were small, and all were poorly conducted. The effect of bupropion on various aspects of daily functioning was not investigated. Also, no studies assessed the long-term effects of this drug. Further studies are needed, to assess whether bupropion is effective in specific ADHD subgroups or in people who have additional disorders."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23482
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEar discharge (otorrhoea) is common in children with grommets (ventilation/tympanostomy tubes); the proportion of children developing discharge ranges from 25% to 75%. The most common treatment strategies include oral broad-spectrum antibiotics, antibiotic eardrops or those containing a combination of antibiotic(s) and a corticosteroid, and initial observation. Important drivers for one strategy over the other are concerns over the side effects of oral antibiotics and the potential ototoxicity of antibiotic eardrops.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of current treatment strategies for children with ear discharge occurring at least two weeks following grommet (ventilation tube) insertion.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register, CENTRAL (2016, Issue 5), multiple databases and additional sources for published and unpublished trials (search date 23 June 2016).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing at least two of the following: oral antibiotics, oral corticosteroids, antibiotic eardrops (with or without corticosteroid), corticosteroid eardrops, microsuction cleaning of the ear canal, saline rinsing of the ear canal, placebo or no treatment. The main comparison of interest was antibiotic eardrops (with or without corticosteroid) versus oral antibiotics.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were: proportion of children with resolution of ear discharge at short-term follow-up (less than two weeks), adverse events and serious complications. Secondary outcomes were: proportion of children with resolution of ear discharge at intermediate- (two to four weeks) and long-term (four to 12 weeks) follow-up, proportion of children with resolution of ear pain and fever at short-term follow-up, duration of ear discharge, proportion of children with chronic ear discharge, ear discharge recurrences, tube blockage, tube extrusion, health-related quality of life and hearing. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies, evaluating a range of treatments, with 2132 children who developed acute ear discharge beyond the immediate postoperative period. We judged the risk of bias to be low to moderate in most studies.\nAntibiotic eardrops (with or without corticosteroid) versus oral antibiotics\nAntibiotic eardrops with or without corticosteroid were more effective than oral antibiotics in terms of:\n- resolution of discharge at one week (one study, 42 children, ciprofloxacin eardrops versus amoxicillin: 77% versus 30%; risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 5.22; moderate-quality evidence);\n- resolution of discharge at two weeks (one study, 153 children, bacitracin-colistin-hydrocortisone eardrops versus amoxicillin-clavulanate: 95% versus 56%; RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.08; moderate-quality evidence);\n- duration of discharge (two studies, 233 children, ciprofloxacin eardrops versus amoxicillin: median 4 days versus 7 days and bacitracin-colistin-hydrocortisone eardrops versus amoxicillin-clavulanate: 4 days versus 5 days; moderate-quality evidence);\n- ear discharge recurrences (one study, 148 children, bacitracin-colistin-hydrocortisone eardrops versus amoxicillin-clavulanate: 0 versus 1 episode at six months; low-quality evidence); and\n- disease-specific quality of life (one study, 153 children, bacitracin-colistin-hydrocortisone eardrops versus amoxicillin-clavulanate: difference in change in median Otitis Media-6 total score (range 6 to 42) at two weeks: -2; low-quality evidence).\nWe found no evidence that antibiotic eardrops were more effective in terms of the proportion of children developing chronic ear discharge or tube blockage, generic quality of life or hearing.\nAdverse events occurred at similar rates in children treated with antibiotic eardrops and those treated with oral antibiotics, while no serious complications occurred in either of the groups.\nOther comparisons\n(a) Antibiotic eardrops with or without corticosteroid were more effective thancorticosteroid eardrops in terms of:\n- duration of ear discharge (one study, 331 children, ciprofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin-fluocinolone acetonide versus fluocinolone acetonide eardrops: median 5 days versus 7 days versus 22 days; moderate-quality evidence).\n(b) Antibiotic eardrops were more effective than saline rinsing of the ear canal in terms of:\n- resolution of ear discharge at one week (one study, 48 children, ciprofloxacin eardrops versus saline rinsing: 77% versus 46%; RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.69; moderate-quality evidence);\nbut not in terms of tube blockage. Since the lower limit of the 95% CI for the effect size for resolution of ear discharge at one week approaches unity, a trivial or clinically irrelevant difference cannot be excluded.\n(c) Eardrops containing two antibiotics and a corticosteroid (bacitracin-colistin-hydrocortisone) were more effective than no treatment in terms of:\n- resolution of discharge at two weeks (one study; 151 children: 95% versus 45%; RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.69; moderate-quality evidence);\n- duration of discharge (one study; 147 children, median 4 days versus 12 days; moderate-quality evidence);\n- chronic discharge (one study; 147 children; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; low-quality evidence); and\n- disease-specific quality of life (one study, 153 children, difference in change in median Otitis Media-6 total score (range 6 to 42) between groups at two weeks: -1.5; low-quality evidence).\nWe found no evidence that antibiotic eardrops were more effective in terms of ear discharge recurrences or generic quality of life.\n(d) Eardrops containing a combination of an antibiotic and a corticosteroid were more effective than eardrops containing antibiotics (low-quality evidence) in terms of:\n- resolution of ear discharge at short-term follow-up (two studies, 590 children: 35% versus 20%; RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.31); and\n- duration of discharge (three studies, 813 children);\nbut not in terms of resolution of discharge at intermediate-term follow-up or proportion of children with tube blockage. However, there is a substantial risk of publication bias, therefore these findings should be interpreted with caution.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found moderate to low-quality evidence that antibiotic eardrops (with or without corticosteroid) are more effective than oral antibiotics, corticosteroid eardrops and no treatment in children with ear discharge occurring at least two weeks following grommet insertion. There is some limited, inconclusive evidence that antibiotic eardrops are more effective than saline rinsing. There is uncertainty whether antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops are more effective than eardrops containing antibiotics only.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence and conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found moderate to low-quality evidence that antibiotic eardrops (with or without corticosteroid) are more effective than oral antibiotics, corticosteroid eardrops and no treatment in children with ear discharge occurring at least two weeks following grommet placement. There is some limited, inconclusive evidence that antibiotic eardrops are more effective than saline rinsing. There is uncertainty whether antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops are more effective than eardrops containing antibiotics only."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23483
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHigh blood pressure is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, contributing to about 50% of cardiovascular events worldwide and 37% of cardiovascular-related deaths in Western populations. Epidemiological studies suggest that cocoa-rich products reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Flavanols found in cocoa have been shown to increase the formation of endothelial nitric oxide which promotes vasodilation and therefore blood pressure reduction. Here we update previous meta-analyses on the effect of cocoa on blood pressure.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects on blood pressure of chocolate or cocoa products versus low-flavanol products or placebo in adults with or without hypertension when consumed for two weeks or longer.\nSearch methods\nThis is an updated version of the review initially published in 2012. In this updated version, we searched the following electronic databases from inception to November 2016: Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched international trial registries, and the reference lists of review articles and included trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of chocolate or cocoa products on systolic and diastolic blood pressure in adults for a minimum of two weeks duration.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risks of bias in each trial. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses on the included studies using Review Manager 5. We explored heterogeneity with subgroup analyses by baseline blood pressure, flavanol content of control group, blinding, age and duration. Sensitivity analyses explored the influence of unusual study design.\nMain results\nThirty-five trials (including 40 treatment comparisons) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, we added 17 trials (20 treatment comparisons) to the 18 trials (20 treatment comparisons) in the previous version of this updated review.\nTrials provided participants with 30 to 1218 mg of flavanols (mean = 670 mg) in 1.4 to 105 grams of cocoa products per day in the active intervention group. The control group received either a flavanol-free product (n = 26 treatment comparisons) or a low-flavanol-containing cocoa powder (range 6.4 to 88 mg flavanols (mean = 55 mg, 13 treatment comparisons; 259 mg, 1 trial).\nMeta-analyses of the 40 treatment comparisons involving 1804 mainly healthy participants revealed a small but statistically significant blood pressure-reducing effect of flavanol-rich cocoa products compared with control in trials of two to 18 weeks duration (mean nine weeks):\nMean difference systolic blood pressure (SBP) (95% confidence interval (CI): -1.76 (-3.09 to -0.43) mmHg, P = 0.009, n = 40 treatment comparisons, 1804 participants;\nMean difference diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (95% CI): -1.76 (-2.57 to -0.94) mmHg, P < 0.001, n = 39 treatment comparisons, 1772 participants.\nBaseline blood pressure may play a role in the effect of cocoa on blood pressure. While systolic blood pressure was reduced significantly by 4 mmHg in hypertensive people (n = 9 treatment comparisons, 401 participants), and tended to be lowered in prehypertensive people (n= 8 treatment comparisons, 340 participants), there was no significant difference in normotensive people (n = 23 treatment comparisons, 1063 participants); however, the test for subgroup differences was of borderline significance (P = 0.08; I2 = 60%), requiring further research to confirm the findings.\nSubgroup meta-analysis by blinding suggested a trend towards greater blood pressure reduction in unblinded trials compared to double-blinded trials, albeit statistically not significant. Further research is needed to confirm whether participant expectation may influence blood pressure results. Subgroup analysis by type of control (flavanol-free versus low-flavanol control) did not reveal a significant difference.\nWhether the age of participants plays a role in the effect of cocoa on blood pressure, with younger participants responding with greater blood pressure reduction, needs to be further investigated.\nSensitivity analysis excluding trials with authors employed by trials sponsoring industry (33 trials, 1482 participants) revealed a small reduction in effect size, indicating some reporting bias.\nDue to the remaining heterogeneity, which we could not explain in terms of blinding, flavanol content of the control groups, age of participants, or study duration, we downgraded the quality of the evidence from high to moderate.\nResults of subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution and need to be confirmed or refuted in trials using direct randomised comparisons.\nGenerally, cocoa products were highly tolerable, with adverse effects including gastrointestinal complaints and nausea being reported by 1% of participants in the active cocoa intervention group and 0.4% of participants in the control groups (moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review provides moderate-quality evidence that flavanol-rich chocolate and cocoa products cause a small (2 mmHg) blood pressure-lowering effect in mainly healthy adults in the short term.\nThese findings are limited by the heterogeneity between trials, which could not be explained by prespecified subgroup analyses, including blinding, flavanol content of the control groups, age of participants, or study duration. However, baseline blood pressure may play a role in the effect of cocoa on blood pressure; subgroup analysis of trials with (pre)hypertensive participants revealed a greater blood pressure-reducing effect of cocoa compared to normotensive participants with borderline significance.\nLong-term trials investigating the effect of cocoa on clinical outcomes are also needed to assess whether cocoa has an effect on cardiovascular events and to assess potential adverse effects associated with chronic ingestion of cocoa products.\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 assessed the effect of cocoa products on blood pressure in adults when consumed daily for at least two weeks. We found 35 studies, covering 40 treatment comparisons."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23484
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCarpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compressive neuropathic disorder at the level of the wrist. Acupuncture and other methods that stimulate acupuncture points, such as electroacupuncture, auricular acupuncture, laser acupuncture, moxibustion, and acupressure, are used in treating CTS. Acupuncture has been recommended as a potentially useful treatment for CTS, but its effectiveness remains uncertain. We used Cochrane methodology to assess the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised trials of acupuncture for symptoms in people with CTS.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture and acupuncture-related interventions compared to sham or active treatments for the management of pain and other symptoms of CTS in adults.\nSearch methods\nOn 13 November 2017, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus, DARE, HTA, and NHS EED. In addition, we searched six Korean medical databases, and three Chinese medical databases from inception to 30 April 2018. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised trials examining the effects of acupuncture and related interventions on the symptoms of CTS in adults. Eligible studies specified diagnostic criteria for CTS. We included outcomes measured at least three weeks after randomisation. The included studies compared acupuncture and related interventions to placebo/sham treatments, or to active interventions, such as steroid nerve blocks, oral steroid, splints, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), surgery and physical therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review authors followed standard Cochrane methods.\nMain results\nWe included 12 studies with 869 participants. Ten studies reported the primary outcome of overall clinical improvement at short-term follow-up (3 months or less) after randomisation. Most studies could not be combined in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity, and all had an unclear or high overall risk of bias.\nSeven studies provided information on adverse events. Non-serious adverse events included skin bruising with electroacupuncture and local pain after needle insertion. No serious adverse events were reported.\nOne study (N = 41) comparing acupuncture to sham/placebo reported change on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) at three months after treatment (mean difference (MD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.79 to 0.33) and the BCTQ Functional Status Scale (FSS) (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.63), with no clear difference between interventions; the evidence was of low certainty. The only dropout was due to painful acupuncture. Another study of acupuncture versus placebo/sham acupuncture (N = 111) provided no usable data.\nTwo studies assessed laser acupuncture versus sham laser acupuncture. One study (N = 60), which was at low risk of bias, provided low-certainty evidence of a better Global Symptom Scale (GSS) score with active treatment at four weeks after treatment (MD 7.46, 95% CI 4.71 to 10.22; range of possible GSS scores is 0 to 50) and a higher response rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.22). No serious adverse events were reported in either group. The other study (N = 25) did not assess overall symptom improvement.\nOne trial (N = 77) of conventional acupuncture versus oral corticosteroids provided very low-certainty evidence of greater improvement in GSS score (scale 0 to 50) at 13 months after treatment with acupuncture (MD 8.25, 95% CI 4.12 to 12.38) and a higher responder rate (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.45). Change in GSS at two weeks or four weeks after treatment showed no clear difference between groups. Adverse events occurred in 18% of the oral corticosteroid group and 5% of the acupuncture group (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.32). One study comparing electroacupuncture and oral corticosteroids reported a clinically insignificant difference in change in BCTQ score at four weeks after treatment (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.10; N = 52).\nCombined data from two studies comparing the responder rate with acupuncture versus vitamin B12, produced a RR of 1.16 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; N = 100, very low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.\nOne study of conventional acupuncture versus ibuprofen in which all participants wore night splints found very low-certainty evidence of a lower symptom score on the SSS of the BCTQ with acupuncture (MD -5.80, 95% CI -7.95 to -3.65; N = 50) at one month after treatment. Five people had adverse events with ibuprofen and none with acupuncture.\nOne study of electroacupuncture versus night splints found no clear difference between the groups on the SSS of the BCTQ (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.43; N = 60; very low-certainty evidence). Six people had adverse events with electroacupuncture and none with splints. One study of electroacupuncture plus night splints versus night splints alone presented no difference between the groups on the SSS of the BCTQ at 17 weeks (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.04; N = 181, low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.\nOne study comparing acupuncture plus NSAIDs and vitamins versus NSAIDs and vitamins alone showed no clear difference on the BCTQ SSS at four weeks (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.46; very low-certainty evidence). There was no reporting on adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAcupuncture and laser acupuncture may have little or no effect in the short term on symptoms of CTS in comparison with placebo or sham acupuncture. It is uncertain whether acupuncture and related interventions are more or less effective in relieving symptoms of CTS than corticosteroid nerve blocks, oral corticosteroids, vitamin B12, ibuprofen, splints, or when added to NSAIDs plus vitamins, as the certainty of any conclusions from the evidence is low or very low and most evidence is short term. The included studies covered diverse interventions, had diverse designs, limited ethnic diversity, and clinical heterogeneity. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to rigorously assess the effects of acupuncture and related interventions upon symptoms of CTS. Based on moderate to very-low certainty evidence, acupuncture was associated with no serious adverse events, or reported discomfort, pain, local paraesthesia and temporary skin bruises, but not all studies provided adverse event data.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There may be little or no evidence for any difference between acupuncture or laser acupuncture and placebo or sham for symptoms of CTS. We cannot tell whether acupuncture and related interventions are more or less effective than other methods for the treatment of CTS symptoms. The studies we found were small and there may have been problems in how they were carried out. There was not much information on each comparison. The studies found some side effects from acupuncture, such as pain and bruising. None of the harms were serious. However, not all the studies provided information on side effects. We do not have enough good information from current studies to be sure about the effects of acupuncture and related treatments for CTS. We need larger and better-quality studies to understand any effects of acupuncture and related interventions on symptoms of CTS.\nThis review is up-to-date to 13 November 2017 for English databases and 30 April 2018 for Chinese and Korean databases."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23485
|
[
{
"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: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We looked for studies that investigated and compared healthy older adults (mean age of participants 60 years and older) who received the vaccine to protect against herpes zoster, to healthy older adults who received the fake vaccine.\nWe compared and summarised the findings, and assessed our confidence in the evidence based on study size, on how the data were presented, and on the risks of bias (the likelihood that features of the study design or conduct of the study will lead to wrong results)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23486
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with bronchiectasis experience chronic cough and sputum production and require the prescription of airway clearance techniques (ACTs). A common type of ACT prescribed is positive expiratory pressure (PEP) therapy. A previous review has suggested that ACTs including PEP therapy are beneficial compared to no treatment in people with bronchiectasis. However, the efficacy of PEP therapy in a stable clinical state or during an acute exacerbation compared to other ACTs in bronchiectasis is unknown.\nObjectives\nThe primary aim of this review was to determine the effects of PEP therapy compared with other ACTs on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), rate of acute exacerbations, and incidence of hospitalisation in individuals with stable or an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis.\nSecondary aims included determining the effects of PEP therapy upon physiological outcomes and clinical signs and symptoms compared with other ACTs in individuals with stable or an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, PEDro and clinical trials registries from inception to February 2017 and we handsearched relevant journals.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled parallel and cross-over trials that compared PEP therapy versus other ACTs in participants with bronchiectasis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as outlined by Cochrane.\nMain results\nNine studies involving 213 participants met the inclusion criteria, of which seven were cross-over in design. All studies included adults with bronchiectasis, with eight including participants in a stable clinical state and one including participants experiencing an acute exacerbation. Eight studies used oscillatory PEP therapy, using either a Flutter or Acapella device and one study used Minimal PEP therapy. The comparison intervention differed between studies. The methodological quality of studies was poor, with cross-over studies including suboptimal or no washout period, and a lack of blinding of participants, therapists or personnel for outcome measure assessment in most studies. Clinical heterogeneity between studies limited meta-analysis.\nDaily use of oscillatory PEP therapy for four weeks was associated with improved general health according to the Short-Form 36 questionnaire compared to the active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT). When applied for three sessions over one week, minimal PEP therapy resulted in similar improvement in cough-related quality of life as autogenic drainage (AD) and L'expiration Lente Totale Glotte Ouverte en Decubitus Lateral (ELTGOL). Oscillatory PEP therapy twice daily for four weeks had similar effects on disease-specific HRQOL (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.19; low-quality evidence). Data were not available to determine the incidence of hospitalisation or rate of exacerbation in clinically stable participants.\nTwo studies of a single session comparison of oscillatory PEP therapy and gravity-assisted drainage (GAD) with ACBT had contrasting findings. One study found a similar sputum weight produced with both techniques (SMD 0.54g (-0.38 to 1.46; 20 participants); the other found greater sputum expectoration with GAD and ACBT (SMD 5.6 g (95% CI 2.91 to 8.29: 36 participants). There was no difference in sputum weight yielded between oscillatory PEP therapy and ACBT with GAD when applied daily for four weeks or during an acute exacerbation. Although a single session of oscillatory PEP therapy was associated with less sputum compared to AD (median difference 3.1 g (95% CI 1.5 to 4.8 g; one study, 31 participants), no difference between oscillatory PEP therapy and seated ACBT was evident. PEP therapy had a similar effect on dynamic and static measures of lung volumes and gas exchange as all other ACTs. A single session of oscillatory PEP therapy (Flutter) generated a similar level of fatigue as ACBT with GAD, but greater fatigue was noted with oscillatory PEP therapy compared to ACBT alone. The degree of breathlessness experienced with PEP therapy did not differ from other techniques. Among studies exploring adverse events, only one study reported nausea with use of oscillatory PEP therapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPEP therapy appears to have similar effects on HRQOL, symptoms of breathlessness, sputum expectoration, and lung volumes compared to other ACTs when prescribed within a stable clinical state or during an acute exacerbation. The number of studies and the overall quality of the evidence were both low. In view of the chronic nature of bronchiectasis, additional information is needed to establish the long-term clinical effects of PEP therapy over other ACTs for outcomes that are important to people with bronchiectasis and on clinical parameters which impact on disease progression and patient morbidity in individuals with stable bronchiectasis. In addition, the role of PEP therapy during an acute exacerbation requires further exploration. This information is necessary to provide further guidance for prescription of PEP therapy for people with bronchiectasis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence to identify the effects of positive expiratory pressure (PEP) therapy compared to other airway clearance techniques (ACTs) in people with bronchiectasis."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23487
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute exacerbations punctuate the natural history of COPD and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality and disease progression. Chronic airflow limitation is caused by a combination of small airways (bronchitis) and parenchymal destruction (emphysema), which can impact day-to-day activities and overall quality of life. In carefully selected patients with COPD, long-term, prophylactic use of antibiotics may reduce bacterial load, inflammation of the airways, and the frequency of exacerbations.\nObjectives\nTo assess effects of different prophylactic antibiotics on exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events in people with COPD in three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), and to provide rankings of identified antibiotics.\nSearch methods\nTo identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinical trials registries. We conducted the most recent search on 22 January 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs with a parallel design of at least 12 weeks' duration evaluating long-term administration of antibiotics prophylactically compared with other antibiotics, or placebo, for patients with COPD.\nData collection and analysis\nThis Cochrane Review collected and updated pair-wise data from two previous Cochrane Reviews. Searches were updated and additional studies included. We conducted three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs) within a Bayesian framework to assess three outcomes: exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. For quality of life, we collected data from St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Using previously validated methods, we selected the simplest model that could adequately fit the data for every analysis. We used threshold analysis to indicate which results were robust to potential biases, taking into account each study’s contributions to the overall results and network structure. Probability ranking was performed for each antibiotic class for exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events.\nMain results\nCharacteristics of studies and participants\nEight trials were conducted at multiple sites that included hospital clinics or academic health centres. Seven were single-centre trials conducted in hospital clinics. Two trials did not report settings. Trials durations ranged from 12 to 52 weeks. Most participants had moderate to severe disease. Mean age ranged from 64 years to 73 years, and more males were recruited (51% to 100%). Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranged from 0.935 to 1.36 L. Most participants had previous exacerbations. Data from 12 studies were included in the NMAs (3405 participants; 16 treatment arms including placebo). Prophylactic antibiotics evaluated were macrolides (azithromycin and erythromycin), tetracyclines (doxycyclines), quinolones (moxifloxacin) and macrolides plus tetracyclines (roxithromycin plus doxycycline).\nRisk of bias and threshold analysis\nMost studies were at low risk across domains, except detection bias, for which only seven studies were judged at low risk. In the threshold analysis for exacerbations, all comparisons in which one antibiotic was compared with another were robust to sampling variation, especially macrolide comparisons. Comparisons of classes with placebo were sensitive to potential bias, especially macrolide versus placebo, therefore, any bias in the comparison was likely to favour the active class, so any adjustment would bring the estimated relative effect closer to the null value, thus quinolone may become the best class to prevent exacerbations.\nExacerbations\nNine studies were included (2732 participants) in this NMA (exacerbations analysed as time to first exacerbation or people with one or more exacerbations). Macrolides and quinolones reduced exacerbations. Macrolides had a greater effect in reducing exacerbations compared with placebo (macrolides: hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.60 to 0.75; quinolones: HR 0.89, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.04), resulting in 127 fewer people per 1000 experiencing exacerbations on macrolides. The difference in exacerbations between tetracyclines and placebo was uncertain (HR 1.29, 95% CrI 0.66 to 2.41). Macrolides ranked first (95% CrI first to second), with quinolones ranked second (95% CrI second to third). Tetracyclines ranked fourth, which was lower than placebo (ranked third). Contributing studies were considered as low risk of bias in a threshold analysis.\nQuality of life (SGRQ)\nSeven studies were included (2237 participants) in this NMA. SGRQ scores improved with macrolide treatment compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% CrI -3.61 to -0.99), but the mean difference did not reach the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) of 4 points. Tetracyclines and quinolones did not improve quality of life any more than placebo, and we did not detect a difference between antibiotic classes.\nSerious adverse events\nNine studies were included (3180 participants) in the NMA. Macrolides reduced the odds of a serious adverse event compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% CrI 0.62 to 0.93). There was probably little to no difference in the effect of quinolone compared with placebo or tetracycline plus macrolide compared with placebo. There was probably little to no difference in serious adverse events between quinolones or tetracycline plus macrolide. With macrolide treatment 49 fewer people per 1000 experienced a serious adverse event compared with those given placebo. Macrolides ranked first, followed by quinolones. Tetracycline did not rank better than placebo.\nDrug resistance\nTen studies reported drug resistance. Results were not combined due to variation in outcome measures. All studies concluded that prophylactic antibiotic administration was associated with the development of antimicrobial resistance.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis NMA evaluated the safety and efficacy of different antibiotics used prophylactically for COPD patients. Compared to placebo, prolonged administration of macrolides (ranked first) appeared beneficial in prolonging the time to next exacerbation, improving quality of life, and reducing serious adverse events. No clear benefits were associated with use of quinolones or tetracyclines. In addition, antibiotic resistance was a concern and could not be thoroughly assessed in this review. Given the trade-off between effectiveness, safety, and risk of antibiotic resistance, prophylactic administration of antibiotics may be best reserved for selected patients, such as those experiencing frequent exacerbations. However, none of the eligible studies excluded patients with previously isolated non-tuberculous mycobacteria, which would contraindicate prophylactic administration of antibiotics, due to the risk of developing resistant non-tuberculous mycobacteria.\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 did not find any concerns about the ways in which studies were carried out, except that for some studies, people collecting the information knew (1) which patient was included in which treatment group, and (2) patient results when treatments were completed. Overall, the numerical information was robust and was unlikely to be influenced by differences noted between individual studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23488
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThere is a common perception that smoking generally helps people to manage stress, and may be a form of 'self-medication' in people with mental health conditions. However, there are biologically plausible reasons why smoking may worsen mental health through neuroadaptations arising from chronic smoking, leading to frequent nicotine withdrawal symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression, irritability), in which case smoking cessation may help to improve rather than worsen mental health.\nObjectives\nTo examine the association between tobacco smoking cessation and change in mental health.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from 14 April 2012 to 07 January 2020. These were updated searches of a previously-conducted non-Cochrane review where searches were conducted from database inception to 13 April 2012.\nSelection criteria\nWe included controlled before-after studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed by smoking status at follow-up, and longitudinal cohort studies. In order to be eligible for inclusion studies had to recruit adults who smoked tobacco, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. They also had to measure a mental health outcome at baseline and at least six weeks later.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcomes were change in depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms or mixed anxiety and depression symptoms between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes included change in symptoms of stress, psychological quality of life, positive affect, and social impact or social quality of life, as well as new incidence of depression, anxiety, or mixed anxiety and depression disorders.\nWe assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using a modified ROBINS-I tool. For change in mental health outcomes, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in change in mental health from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For the incidence of psychological disorders, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using I2. We conducted subgroup analyses to investigate any differences in associations between sub-populations, i.e. unselected people with mental illness, people with physical chronic diseases.\nWe assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes (depression, anxiety, and mixed depression and anxiety) and our secondary social impact outcome using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias, magnitude of the effect, the influence of all plausible residual confounding, the presence of a dose-response gradient).\nMain results\nWe included 102 studies representing over 169,500 participants. Sixty-two of these were identified in the updated search for this review and 40 were included in the original version of the review. Sixty-three studies provided data on change in mental health, 10 were included in meta-analyses of incidence of mental health disorders, and 31 were synthesised narratively.\nFor all primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in mental health symptoms compared with continuing to smoke: anxiety symptoms (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.43 to −0.13; 15 studies, 3141 participants; I2 = 69%; low-certainty evidence); depression symptoms: (SMD −0.30, 95% CI −0.39 to −0.21; 34 studies, 7156 participants; I2 = 69%' very low-certainty evidence); mixed anxiety and depression symptoms (SMD −0.31, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.22; 8 studies, 2829 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). These findings were robust to preplanned sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analysis generally did not produce evidence of differences in the effect size among subpopulations or based on methodological characteristics. All studies were deemed to be at serious risk of bias due to possible time-varying confounding, and three studies measuring depression symptoms were judged to be at critical risk of bias overall. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for anxiety as low, for depression as very low, and for mixed anxiety and depression as moderate.\nFor the secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in symptoms of stress (SMD −0.19, 95% CI −0.34 to −0.04; 4 studies, 1792 participants; I2 = 50%), positive affect (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.33; 13 studies, 4880 participants; I2 = 75%), and psychological quality of life (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 19 studies, 18,034 participants; I2 = 42%). There was also evidence that smoking cessation was not associated with a reduction in social quality of life, with the confidence interval incorporating the possibility of a small improvement (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 9 studies, 14,673 participants; I2 = 0%). The incidence of new mixed anxiety and depression was lower in people who stopped smoking compared with those who continued (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 3 studies, 8685 participants; I2 = 57%), as was the incidence of anxiety disorder (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; 2 studies, 2293 participants; I2 = 46%). We deemed it inappropriate to present a pooled estimate for the incidence of new cases of clinical depression, as there was high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 87%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTaken together, these data provide evidence that mental health does not worsen as a result of quitting smoking, and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with small to moderate improvements in mental health. These improvements are seen in both unselected samples and in subpopulations, including people diagnosed with mental health conditions. Additional studies that use more advanced methods to overcome time-varying confounding would strengthen the evidence in this area.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the results of our review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Compared with people who continued to smoke, people who stopped smoking showed greater reductions in:\n- anxiety (evidence from 3141 people in 15 studies);\n- depression (7156 people in 34 studies); and\n- mixed anxiety and depression (2829 people in 8 studies).\nOur confidence in our results was very low (for depression), low (for anxiety), and moderate (for mixed anxiety and depression). Our confidence was reduced because we found limitations in the ways the studies were designed and carried out.\nCompared with people who continued to smoke, people who stopped smoking showed greater improvements in:\n- symptoms of stress (evidence from 4 studies in 1792 people);\n- positive feelings (13 studies in 4880 people); and\n- mental well-being (19 studies in 18,034 people).\nThere was also evidence that people who stopped smoking did not have a reduction in their social well-being, and their social well-being may have increased slightly (9 studies in 14,673 people).\nIn people who stopped smoking, new cases of mixed anxiety and depression were fewer than in those who continued to smoke (evidence from 3 studies in 8685 people). New cases of anxiety were also fewer (2 studies in 2293 people). We were unable to come to a decision about the numbers of new cases of depression, as the results from different studies were too variable."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23489
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBelimumab, the first biologic approved for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), has been shown to reduce autoantibody levels in people with SLE and help control disease activity.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of belimumab (alone or in combination) in systematic lupus erythematosus.\nSearch methods\nAn Information Specialist carried out the searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 25 September 2019. There were no language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of belimumab (alone or in combination) compared to placebo/control treatment (immunosuppressive drugs, such as azathioprine, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil or another biologic), in adults with SLE.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nSix RCTs (2917 participants) qualified for quantitative analyses. All included studies were multicenter, international or US-based. The age range of the included participants was 22 to 80 years; most were women; and study duration ranged from 84 days to 76 weeks. The risk of bias was generally low except for attrition bias, which was high in 67% of studies.\nCompared to placebo, more participants on belimumab 10 mg/kg (Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose) showed at least a 4-point improvement (reduction) in Safety of Estrogen in Lupus National Assessment (SELENA) - Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score, a validated SLE disease activity index: (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.45; 829/1589 in belimumab group and 424/1077 in placebo; I2= 0%; 4 RCTs; high-certainty evidence).\nChange in health-related quality of life (HRQOL), assessed by Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary score improvement (range 0 to 100), showed there was probably little or no difference between groups (mean difference 1.6 points, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.90; 401 in belimumab group and 400 in placebo; I2= 0%; 2 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The belimumab 10 mg/kg group showed greater improvement in glucocorticoid dose, with a higher proportion of participants reducing their dose by at least 50% compared to placebo (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.15; 81/269 in belimumab group and 52/268 in placebo; I2= 0%; 2 RCTs; high-certainty evidence).\nThe proportion of participants experiencing harm may not differ meaningfully between the belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo groups: one or more serious adverse event (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.11; 238/1700 in belimumab group and 199/1190 in placebo; I2= 48%; 5 RCTs; low-certainty evidence; ); one or more serious infection (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.54; 44/1230 in belimumab group and 40/955 in placebo; I2= 0%; 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence); and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.07; 113/1700 in belimumab group and 94/1190 in placebo; I2= 0%; 5 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). Mortality was rare, and may not differ between belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo (Peto odds ratio 1.15, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.25; 9/1714 in belimumab group and 6/1203 in placebo; I2= 4%; 6 RCTs; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe six studies that provided evidence for benefits and harms of belimumab were well-designed, high-quality RCTs. At the FDA-approved dose of 10 mg/kg, based on moderate to high-certainty data, belimumab was probably associated with a clinically meaningful efficacy benefit compared to placebo in participants with SLE at 52 weeks. Evidence related to harms is inconclusive and mostly of moderate to low-certainty evidence. More data are needed for the longer-term efficacy of belimumab.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How-up-to date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence in this Cochrane Review is current to September 2019."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23490
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBeta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) when used in people with heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers were thought to have similar beneficial effects when used as first-line therapy for hypertension. However, the benefit of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension without compelling indications is controversial. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review initially published in 2007 and updated in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to June 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews, and reference lists of studies potentially eligible for inclusion in this review, and also searched the the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 06 July 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year of duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nWe selected studies and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE classifies the certainty of evidence as high (if we are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect), moderate (if the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect), low (if the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect), and very low (if we are very uncertain about the estimate of effect).\nMain results\nThirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. They compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 RCTs, 23,613 participants), diuretics (5 RCTs, 18,241 participants), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 RCTs, 44,825 participants), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 RCTs, 10,828 participants). These RCTs were conducted between the 1970s and 2000s and most of them had a high risk of bias resulting from limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis. There were 40,245 participants taking beta-blockers, three-quarters of them taking atenolol. We found no outcome trials involving the newer vasodilating beta-blockers (e.g. nebivolol).\nThere was no difference in all-cause mortality between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but it was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14). The evidence on mortality was of moderate-certainty for all comparisons.\nTotal CVD was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97; low-certainty evidence), a reflection of the decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence) since there was no difference in coronary heart disease (CHD: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence), but was not different from that of diuretics (moderate-certainty) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty). In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.53; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference in CHD between beta-blockers and diuretics (low-certainty evidence), CCBs (moderate-certainty evidence) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). In the single trial involving participants aged 65 years and older, atenolol was associated with an increased CHD incidence compared to diuretics (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.32). Participants taking beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than participants taking RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little or no difference with placebo, diuretics or CCBs (low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost outcome RCTs on beta-blockers as initial therapy for hypertension have high risk of bias. Atenolol was the beta-blocker most used. Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality. These beta-blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different subtypes of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and older people.\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 June 2016."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23491
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary arterial hypertension is a devastating disease that leads to right heart failure and premature death. Endothelin receptor antagonists have shown efficacy in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) in pulmonary arterial hypertension.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the reference sections of retrieved articles. The searches are current as of 4 November 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials and quasi-randomised trials involving participants with pulmonary arterial hypertension.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo of five review authors selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality according to established criteria. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were exercise capacity (six-minute walk distance, 6MWD), World Health Organization (WHO) or New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, Borg dyspnoea scores and dyspnoea-fatigue ratings, and mortality.\nMain results\nWe included 17 randomised controlled trials involving a total of 3322 participants. Most trials were of relatively short duration (12 weeks to six months). Sixteen trials were placebo-controlled, and of these nine investigated a non-selective ERA and seven a selective ERA.\nWe evaluated two comparisons in the review: ERA versus placebo and ERA versus phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor. The abstract focuses on the placebo-controlled trials only and presents the pooled results of selective and non-selective ERAs.\nAfter treatment, participants receiving ERAs could probably walk on average 25.06 m (95% confidence interval (CI) 17.13 to 32.99 m; 2739 participants; 14 studies; I2 = 34%, moderate-certainty evidence) further than those receiving placebo in a 6MWD. Endothelin receptor antagonists probably improved more participants' WHO functional class (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.70; participants = 3060; studies = 15; I2 = 5%, moderate-certainty evidence) and probably lowered the odds of functional class deterioration (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.72; participants = 2347; studies = 13; I2 = 40%, moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. There may be a reduction in mortality with ERAs (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.58, 1.07; 2889 participants; 12 studies; I2 = 0%, low-certainty evidence), and pooled data suggest that ERAs probably improve cardiopulmonary haemodynamics and may reduce Borg dyspnoea score in symptomatic patients. Hepatic toxicity was not common, but may be increased by ERA treatment from 37 to 67 (95% CI 34 to 130) per 1000 over 25 weeks of treatment (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.90; moderate-certainty evidence). Although ERAs were well tolerated in this population, several cases of irreversible liver failure caused by sitaxsentan have been reported, which led the licence holder for sitaxsentan to withdraw the product from all markets worldwide.\nAs planned, we performed subgroup analyses comparing selective and non-selective ERAs, and with the exception of mean pulmonary artery pressure, did not detect any clear subgroup differences for any outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor people with pulmonary arterial hypertension with WHO functional class II and III, endothelin receptor antagonists probably increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, prevent WHO functional class deterioration, result in favourable changes in cardiopulmonary haemodynamic variables compared with placebo. However, they are less effective in reducing dyspnoea and mortality. The efficacy data were strongest in those with idiopathic pulmonary hypertension. The irreversible liver failure caused by sitaxsentan and its withdrawal from global markets emphasise the importance of hepatic monitoring in people treated with ERAs. The question of the effects of ERAs on pulmonary arterial hypertension has now likely been answered. The combined use of ERAs and phosphodiesterase inhibitors may provide more benefit in pulmonary arterial hypertension; however, this needs to be confirmed in future studies.\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": "Do endothelin receptor antagonists increase how much a person is capable of exercising (exercise capacity), improve symptoms, or reduce death in people with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH)?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23492
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLamellar macular holes (LMHs) are small, partial-thickness defects of the macula defined by characteristic features on optical coherence tomography (OCT), including a newly recognised type of epiretinal membrane termed ‘epiretinal proliferation’. There may be a rationale to recommend surgery for individuals with LMHs, particularly those with functional or anatomical deterioration, or poor baseline vision causing significant disability, to stabilise the LMH and prevent further visual deterioration; however, there is currently no evidence-based consensus.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of surgical interventions on post-operative visual and anatomical outcomes in people with a confirmed LMH.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Scopus SciVerse, ISRCTN registry, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We also searched reference lists of included trials to identify other eligible trials which our search strategy may have missed. The date of the search was 20 July 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving participants with a confirmed LMH diagnosis which reported one or more surgical intervention(s), alone or in combination, in at least one arm of the RCT.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods as expected by Cochrane. Two study authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for included trials. Trial authors were contacted for further information and clarification.\nMain results\nA single RCT was eligible for inclusion. Thirty-six participants were randomised in a 2:1 ratio; 24 were allocated to undergo surgery (pars plana vitrectomy, peeling of the epiretial proliferation followed by fovea-sparing removal of the internal limiting membrane) and 12 (10 following two participant dropouts) to observation.\nOverall, the certainty of the evidence was low for all outcomes due to selection and detection bias, and the low number of participants enrolled in the study which may affect the accuracy of results and reliability of conclusions.\nAt six-month follow-up, change in vision was better in the surgery group (-0.27 logMAR improvement) than observation (0.02 worsening) (mean difference (MD): -0.29 logMAR, 95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.33 to -0.25). Central retinal thickness increased in the surgery group over 6 months 126 μm increase) compared with observation group (decrease by 11μm) (MD: 137 μm, 95% CI: 125.87 μm to 148.13 μm). Finally, at six-month follow-up, retinal sensitivity was better in the surgery group (3.03 dB increase) compared with the observation group (0.06 dB decrease) (MD: 3.09 dB, 95% CI: 2.07 to 4.11 dB).\nVision-related quality of life and metamorphopsia were not reported. No adverse outcomes or complications were reported in the study, however, authors could not provide information on whether any individuals developed deterioration in vision of 0.2 logMAR or worse.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe included single trial demonstrated improvements in visual and anatomical outcome measures for participants with a LMH who underwent surgery compared with observation only. Therefore, we can conclude that participants who undergo surgery may achieve superior post-operative best corrected visual acuity and anatomical outcomes compared with observation only. However, the results of a single and small RCT provides limited evidence to support or refute surgery as an effective management option for LMHs. Future RCTs with a larger number of participants and with fewer methodological limitations and biases are necessary to inform future clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found one study that involved a total of 36 people with a diagnosis of a lamellar macular hole. This study showed that people who underwent surgery may achieve better vision six months after their surgery compared with people who were observed without receiving surgery. However, limitations in the study design and its small size means that our confidence in the evidence was low."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23493
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgery for rotator cuff disease is usually used after non-operative interventions have failed, although our Cochrane Review, first published in 2007, found that there was uncertain clinical benefit following subacromial decompression surgery.\nObjectives\nTo synthesise the available evidence of the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery compared with placebo, no intervention or non-surgical interventions in people with rotator cuff disease (excluding full thickness rotator cuff tears).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry from 2006 until 22 October 2018, unrestricted by language.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with rotator cuff disease (excluding full-thickness tears), that compared subacromial decompression surgery with placebo, no treatment, or any other non-surgical interventions. As it is least prone to bias, subacromial decompression compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Other comparisons were subacromial decompression versus exercises or non-operative treatment. Major outcomes were mean pain scores, shoulder function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year. For serious adverse events, we also included data from prospective cohort studies designed to record harms that evaluated subacromial decompression surgery or shoulder arthroscopy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included eight trials, with a total of 1062 randomised participants with rotator cuff disease, all with subacromial impingement. Two trials (506 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression with arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), with all groups receiving postoperative exercises. These trials included a third treatment group: no treatment (active monitoring) in one and exercises in the other. Six trials (556 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression followed by exercises with exercises alone. Two of these trials included a third arm: sham laser in one and open subacromial decompression in the other.\nTrial size varied from 42 to 313 participants. Participant mean age ranged between 42 and 65 years. Only two trials reported mean symptom duration (18 to 22 months in one trial and 30 to 31 months in the other), two did not report duration and four reported it categorically.\nBoth placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias for the comparison of surgery versus placebo surgery. The other trials were at high risk of bias for several criteria, most notably at risk of performance or detection bias due to lack of participant and personnel blinding. We have restricted the reporting of results of benefits in the Abstract to the placebo-controlled trials.\nCompared with placebo, high-certainty evidence indicates that subacromial decompression provides no improvement in pain, shoulder function, or health-related quality of life up to one year, and probably no improvement in global success (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision).\nAt one year, mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain), was 2.9 points after placebo surgery and 0.26 better (0.84 better to 0.33 worse), after subacromial decompression (284 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (8% better to 3% worse), and relative difference of 4% (12% better to 5% worse). At one year, mean function (on a scale 0 to 100, higher score indicating better outcome), was 69 points after placebo surgery and 2.8 better (1.4 worse to 6.9 better), after surgery (274 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (7% better to 1% worse), and relative difference of 9% (22% better to 4% worse). Global success rate was 97/148 (or 655 per 1000), after placebo and 101/142 (or 708 per 1000) after surgery corresponding to RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). Health-related quality of life was 0.73 units (European Quality of Life EQ-5D, −0.59 to 1, higher score indicating better quality of life), after placebo and 0.03 units worse (0.011 units worse to 0.06 units better), after subacromial decompression (285 participants), an absolute difference of 1.3% (5% worse to 2.5% better), and relative difference of 4% (15% worse to 7% better).\nAdverse events including frozen shoulder or transient minor complications of surgery were reported in approximately 3% of participants across treatment groups in two randomised controlled trials, but due to low event rates we are uncertain if the risks differ between groups: 5/165 (37 per 1000) reported adverse events with subacromial decompression and 9/241 (34 per 1000) with placebo or non-operative treatment, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.65) (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). The trials did not report serious adverse events.\nBased upon moderate-certainty evidence from two observational trials from the same prospective surgery registry, which also included other shoulder arthroscopic procedures (downgraded for indirectness), the incidence proportion of serious adverse events within 30 days following surgery was 0.5% (0.4% to 0.7%; data collected 2006 to 2011), or 0.6% (0.5 % to 0.7%; data collected 2011 to 2013). Serious adverse events such as deep infection, pulmonary embolism, nerve injury, and death have been observed in participants following shoulder surgery.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe data in this review do not support the use of subacromial decompression in the treatment of rotator cuff disease manifest as painful shoulder impingement. High-certainty evidence shows that subacromial decompression does not provide clinically important benefits over placebo in pain, function or health-related quality of life. Including results from open-label trials (with high risk of bias) did not change the estimates considerably. Due to imprecision, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate for global assessment of treatment success; there was probably no clinically important benefit in this outcome either compared with placebo, exercises or non-operative treatment.\nAdverse event rates were low, 3% or less across treatment groups in the trials, which is consistent with adverse event rates reported in the two observational studies. Although precise estimates are unknown, the risk of serious adverse events is likely less than 1%.\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": "Two trials (506 participants) met our criteria for inclusion for our main comparison, surgery versus placebo. Subacromial decompression resulted in little benefit to people at one-year follow-up.\nPain (lower scores mean less pain):\nimproved by 3% (3% worse to 8% better), or 0.26 points on a zero to 10 scale\n• People who had placebo rated their pain as 2.9 points\n• People who had surgery rated their pain as 2.6 points\nFunction (0 to 100; higher scores mean better function):\nimproved by 3% (1% worse to 7% better) or 3 points on a zero to 100 scale\n• People who had placebo rated their function as 69 points\n• People who had surgery rated their function as 72 points\nTreatment success (much better or no problems at all):\n5% more people rated their treatment a success (5% fewer to 16% more), or five more people out of 100\n• 66 out of 100 people considered treatment as successful after placebo procedure\n• 71 out of 100 people considered treatment as successful after surgery\nHealth-related quality of life (higher scores mean better quality of life):\nworsened 2% (8% worse to 4% better) or 0.02 points on a −0.59 to 1 scale\n• People who had placebo rated their quality of life as 0.73 points\n• People who had surgery rated their quality of life 0.71 points\nAdverse events\n1% fewer people (4% fewer to 3% more) had adverse events with surgery\n• 4 out of 100 people reported adverse events after placebo\n• 3 out of 100 people reported adverse event after surgery\nSerious adverse events\nNo serious adverse events were reported in the trials. In observational studies the rate of serious adverse events was between 0.5% and 0.6%.\n• 5 or 6 out of 1000 people had a serious adverse event after surgery"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23494
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe distal tibial metaphysis is located in the lower (distal) part of the tibia (shin bone). Fractures of this part of the tibia are most commonly due to a high energy injury in young men and to osteoporosis in older women. The optimal methods of surgical intervention for a distal tibial metaphyseal fracture remain uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of surgical interventions for distal tibial metaphyseal fractures in adults. We planned to compare surgical versus non-surgical (conservative) treatment, and different methods of surgical intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (9 December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1946 to November Week 3 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 Week 48), the Airiti Library (1967 to 2014 Week 8), China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (1915 to 2014 Week 8), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2014) and reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical studies comparing surgical versus non-surgical (conservative) treatment or different surgical interventions for treating distal tibial metaphyseal fractures in adults. Our primary outcomes were patient-reported function and the need for secondary or revision surgery or substantive physiotherapy because of adverse outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted data. We resolved disagreement by discussion and, where necessary, in consultation with a third author. Where appropriate we pooled data using the fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included three randomised trials that evaluated intramedullary nailing versus plating in 213 participants, with useable data from 173 participants of whom 112 were male. The mean age of participants in individual studies ranged from 41 to 44 years. There were no trials comparing surgery with non-surgical treatment. The three included trials were at high risk of performance bias, with one trial also being at high risk of selection, detection and attrition bias. Overall, the quality of available evidence was rated as very low for all outcomes, meaning that we are very unsure about the estimates for all outcomes.\nAlthough the pooled results of three different measures of foot and ankle function indicated a small difference in favour of nailing (standard mean difference 0.28, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.59; 172 participants, 3 trials), the results of individual trials indicated that this was very unlikely to be a clinically important difference. Pooled data (173 participants, 3 trials) for the need for reoperation or substantive physiotherapy for adverse events favoured nailing (4/90 versus 10/83; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.12), but included the possibility of a better outcome after plating. Based on an illustrative risk of 100 re-operations for adverse outcomes within one year of plate fixation in 1000 people with these fractures, 63 fewer (95% CI 88 fewer to 12 more) people per 1000 would have re-operations after nailing. Similarly pooled data (173 participants, 3 trials) for the symptomatic nonunion or malunion, wound complications and fracture union favoured nailing but the 95% confidence intervals crossed the line of no effect and thus included the possibility of a better outcome after plating. Evidence from one trial (85 participants) showed no clinically important difference in pain between the two groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, there is either no or insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions on the use of surgery or the best surgical intervention for distal tibial metaphyseal fractures in adults. The available evidence, which is of very low quality, found no clinically important differences in function or pain, and did not confirm a difference in the need for re-operation or risk of complications between nailing and plating.\nThe addition of evidence from two ongoing trials of nailing versus plating should inform this question in future updates. Further randomised trials are warranted on other issues, but should be preceded by research to identify priority questions.\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 medical databases and trials registries in December 2014. We wanted to include studies in which receiving one surgical treatment or another surgical treatment was decided by chance. This research method, termed a randomised controlled trial (RCT), is the best way to ensure that any measured improvement is caused by the treatment itself and no other factors. We found three RCTs involving 213 adults (with results available from 173) that compared nailing versus plating for treating distal tibial fractures. Overall the studies included around twice as many males as females and the average age of the study participants was just over 40 years. We found no trials comparing surgery with non-surgical treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23495
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRisperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form.\nObjectives\nTo determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia.\nSearch methods\nOn 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).\nMain results\nThe review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).\nWhen risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.\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": "Results from limited data suggest that risperidone is more effective than placebo for reducing the overall symptoms of schizophrenia, and participants receiving risperidone were more likely to comply with treatment. However, like the older typical antipsychotics, risperidone was also associated with serious side effects, such as parkinsonism."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23496
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe widespread use of mobile technologies can potentially expand the use of telemedicine approaches to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, this might increase access to specialist advice and improve patient health outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of mobile technologies versus usual care for supporting communication and consultations between healthcare providers on healthcare providers' performance, acceptability and satisfaction, healthcare use, patient health outcomes, acceptability and satisfaction, costs, and technical difficulties.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and three other databases from 1 January 2000 to 22 July 2019. We searched clinical trials registries, checked references of relevant systematic reviews and included studies, and contacted topic experts.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials comparing mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and consultations compared with usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 19 trials (5766 participants when reported), most were conducted in high-income countries. The most frequently used mobile technology was a mobile phone, often accompanied by training if it was used to transfer digital images. Trials recruited participants with different conditions, and interventions varied in delivery, components, and frequency of contact. We judged most trials to have high risk of performance bias, and approximately half had a high risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases. Two studies reported data on technical problems, reporting few difficulties.\nMobile technologies used by primary care providers to consult with hospital specialists\nWe assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low.\nMobile technologies:\n- probably make little or no difference to primary care providers following guidelines for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD; 1 trial, 47 general practices, 3004 participants);\n- probably reduce the time between presentation and management of individuals with skin conditions, people with symptoms requiring an ultrasound, or being referred for an appointment with a specialist after attending primary care (4 trials, 656 participants);\n- may reduce referrals and clinic visits among people with some skin conditions, and increase the likelihood of receiving retinopathy screening among people with diabetes, or an ultrasound in those referred with symptoms (9 trials, 4810 participants when reported);\n- probably make little or no difference to patient-reported quality of life and health-related quality of life (2 trials, 622 participants) or to clinician-assessed clinical recovery (2 trials, 769 participants) among individuals with skin conditions;\n- may make little or no difference to healthcare provider (2 trials, 378 participants) or participant acceptability and satisfaction (4 trials, 972 participants) when primary care providers consult with dermatologists;\n- may make little or no difference for total or expected costs per participant for adults with some skin conditions or CKD (6 trials, 5423 participants).\nMobile technologies used by emergency physicians to consult with hospital specialists about people attending the emergency department\nWe assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate.\nMobile technologies:\n- probably slightly reduce the consultation time between emergency physicians and hospital specialists (median difference −12 minutes, 95% CI −19 to −7; 1 trial, 345 participants);\n- probably reduce participants’ length of stay in the emergency department by a few minutes (median difference −30 minutes, 95% CI −37 to −25; 1 trial, 345 participants).\nWe did not identify trials that reported on providers' adherence, participants’ health status and well-being, healthcare provider and participant acceptability and satisfaction, or costs.\nMobile technologies used by community health workers or home-care workers to consult with clinic staff\nWe assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low.\nMobile technologies:\n- probably make little or no difference in the number of outpatient clinic and community nurse consultations for participants with diabetes or older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (2 trials, 370 participants) or hospitalisation of older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (1 trial, 188 participants);\n- may lead to little or no difference in mortality among people living with HIV (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22) or diabetes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.12) (2 trials, 1152 participants);\n- may make little or no difference to participants' disease activity or health-related quality of life in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (1 trial, 85 participants);\n- probably make little or no difference for participant acceptability and satisfaction for participants with diabetes and participants with rheumatoid arthritis (2 trials, 178 participants).\nWe did not identify any trials that reported on providers' adherence, time between presentation and management, healthcare provider acceptability and satisfaction, or costs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur confidence in the effect estimates is limited. Interventions including a mobile technology component to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care may reduce the time between presentation and management of the health condition when primary care providers or emergency physicians use them to consult with specialists, and may increase the likelihood of receiving a clinical examination among participants with diabetes and those who required an ultrasound. They may decrease the number of people attending primary care who are referred to secondary or tertiary care in some conditions, such as some skin conditions and CKD. There was little evidence of effects on participants' health status and well-being, satisfaction, or costs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We aimed to find out if healthcare workers using mHealth services through their mobile phones or other mobile devices to communicate with other healthcare workers provide quicker access to healthcare, and improve patient health outcomes. We collected and analysed all relevant research and found 19 studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23497
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVulval cancer is usually treated by wide local excision with removal of groin lymph nodes (inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy) from one or both sides, depending on the tumour location. However, this procedure is associated with significant morbidity. As lymph node metastasis occurs in about 30% of women with early vulval cancer, accurate prediction of lymph node metastases could reduce the extent of surgery in many women, thereby reducing morbidity. Sentinel node assessment is a diagnostic technique that uses traceable agents to identify the spread of cancer cells to the lymph nodes draining affected tissue. Once the sentinel nodes are identified, they are removed and submitted to histological examination. This technique has been found to be useful in diagnosing the nodal involvement of other types of tumours. Sentinel node assessment in vulval cancer has been evaluated with various tracing agents. It is unclear which tracing agent or combination of agents is most accurate.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic test accuracy of various techniques using traceable agents for sentinel lymph node assessment to diagnose groin lymph node metastasis in women with FIGO stage IB or higher vulval cancer and to investigate sources of heterogeneity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (1946 to February 2013), EMBASE (1974 to March 2013) and the relevant Cochrane trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nStudies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of traceable agents for sentinel node assessment (involving the identification of a sentinel node plus histological examination) compared with histological examination of removed groin lymph nodes following complete inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL) in women with vulval cancer, provided there were sufficient data for the construction of two-by-two tables.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors (TAL, AP) independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, classified studies for inclusion/exclusion and extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used univariate meta-analytical methods to estimate pooled sensitivity estimates.\nMain results\nWe included 34 studies evaluating 1614 women and approximately 2396 groins. The overall methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The studies included in this review used the following traceable techniques to identify sentinel nodes in their participants: blue dye only (three studies), technetium only (eight studies), blue dye plus technetium combined (combined tests; 13 studies) and various inconsistent combinations of these three techniques (mixed tests; 10 studies). For studies of mixed tests, we obtained separate test data where possible.\nMost studies used haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stains for the histological examination. Additionally an immunohistochemical (IHC) stain with and without ultrastaging was employed by 14 and eight studies, respectively. One study used reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis (CA9 RT-PCR), whilst three studies did not describe the histological methods used.\nThe pooled sensitivity estimate for studies using blue dye only was 0.94 (68 women; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.99), for mixed tests was 0.91 (679 women; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98), for technetium only was 0.93 (149 women; 95% CI 0.89 to 0.96) and for combined tests was 0.95 (390 women; 95% CI 0.89 to 0.97). Negative predictive values (NPVs) for all index tests were > 95%. Most studies also reported sentinel node detection rates (the ability of the test to identify a sentinel node) of the index test. The mean detection rate for blue dye alone was 82%, compared with 95%, 96% and 98% for mixed tests, technetium only and combined tests, respectively. We estimated the clinical consequences of the various tests for 100 women undergoing the sentinel node procedure, assuming the prevalence of groin metastases to be 30%. For the combined or technetium only tests, one and two women with groin metastases might be 'missed', respectively (95% CI 1 to 3); and for mixed tests, three women with groin metastases might be 'missed' (95% CI 1 to 9). The wide CIs associated with the pooled sensitivity estimates for blue dye and mixed tests increased the potential for these tests to 'miss' women with groin metastases.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is little difference in diagnostic test accuracy between the technetium and combined tests. The combined test may reduce the number of women with 'missed' groin node metastases compared with technetium only. Blue dye alone may be associated with more 'missed' cases compared with tests using technetium. Sentinel node assessment with technetium-based tests will reduce the need for IFL by 70% in women with early vulval cancer. It is not yet clear how the survival of women with negative sentinel nodes compares to those undergoing standard surgery (IFL). A randomised controlled trial of sentinel node dissection and IFL has methodological and ethical issues, therefore more observational data on the survival of women with early vulval cancer are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the findings?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 34 studies (1614 women) that evaluated three techniques: blue dye only, technetium (a radioactive substance) only, or blue dye and technetium combined. Ten studies used all three techniques during the course of the study (one technique per participant). There are two attributes to a test: the ability to identify or detect the sentinel node, and the ability to identify the cancer in the sentinel node. We found that all tests can identify cancer in the groin nodes with good accuracy (more than 90% of nodes with cancer will be accurately identified with any of the tests), although the combined test was the most accurate (95%). The ability of the tests to detect sentinel nodes varied, with the blue dye test only detecting sentinel nodes in 82% of women, compared with 98% for the combined test. If sentinel nodes are not detected, they cannot be examined for cancer cells; therefore, women in whom sentinel nodes are not detected will usually need to undergo IFL."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23498
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFollicular aspiration under transvaginal ultrasound guidance is routinely performed as part of assisted reproductive technology (ART) to retrieve oocytes for in vitro fertilisation (IVF). The process involves aspiration of the follicular fluid followed by the introduction of flush, typically culture media, back into the follicle followed by re-aspiration. However, there is a degree of controversy as to whether this intervention yields a larger number of oocytes and is hence associated with greater potential for pregnancy than aspiration only.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of follicular flushing as compared with aspiration only performed in women undergoing ART.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases up to 13 July 2021: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL (containing output from two trial registries and CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. We also searched LILACS, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field to identify further relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared follicular aspiration and flushing with aspiration alone in women undergoing ART using their own gametes. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and miscarriage rate per woman randomised.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies identified by search against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third review author was consulted if required. We contacted study authors as needed. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a fixed-effect model, and we analysed continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) between groups presented with 95% CIs. We examined the heterogeneity of studies via the I2 statistic. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 15 studies with a total of 1643 women. Fourteen studies reported outcomes per woman randomised, and one study reported outcomes per ovary. No studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; the main limitation was lack of blinding. The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, and was downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency.\nWe are uncertain of the effect of follicular flushing on live birth rate compared to aspiration alone (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.46; 4 RCTs; n = 467; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that with a live birth rate of approximately 30% with aspiration alone, the equivalent live birth rate with follicular flushing lies between 20% and 39%. We are uncertain of the effect of follicular flushing on miscarriage rate compared to aspiration alone (OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.22; 1 RCT; n = 164; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that with a miscarriage rate of approximately 1% with aspiration alone, the equivalent miscarriage rate with follicular flushing lies between 0% and 22%.\nWe are uncertain of the effect of follicular flushing on oocyte yield (MD −0.47 oocytes, 95% CI −0.72 to −0.22; 9 RCTs; n = 1239; I2 = 61%; very low-certainty evidence); total number of embryos (MD −0.10 embryos, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.15; 2 RCTs; n = 160; I2 = 58%; low-certainty evidence); and clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.51; 7 RCTs; n = 939; I2 = 46%; low-certainty evidence). The duration of the retrieval process may be longer with flushing (MD 175.44 seconds, 95% CI 152.57 to 198.30; 7 RCTs; n = 785; I2 = 87%; low-certainty evidence). It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for adverse events, although individual studies reported on outcomes ranging from depression and anxiety to pain and pelvic organ injury.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of follicular flushing on both live birth and miscarriage rates compared with aspiration alone is uncertain. Although the evidence does not permit any firm conclusions on the impact of follicular flushing on oocyte yield, total number of embryos, number of cryopreserved embryos, or clinical pregnancy rate, it may be that the procedure itself takes longer than aspiration alone. The evidence was insufficient to permit any firm conclusions with respect to adverse events or safety.\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 sought to assess the safety and effectiveness of flushing follicles as part of egg collection in women undergoing treatments to help them get pregnant (assisted reproductive technology (ART))."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23499
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSore throat is a common side-effect of general anaesthesia and is reported by between 30% and 70% of patients after tracheal intubation. The likelihood of a sore throat varies with the type, diameter, and cuff pressure of the endotracheal tube used. If intubation is essential, it may be helpful to give drugs prophylactically to alleviate postoperative sore throat. Local anaesthetics and steroids have been used for this purpose. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2015.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and any harm caused by topical and systemic lidocaine used prophylactically to prevent postoperative sore throat in adults undergoing general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2013), and EMBASE (1980 to October 2013). We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. The original search was undertaken in June 2007. We reran the search in February 2015 and found four studies of interest. We will deal with those studies when we next update the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical and systemic prophylactic lidocaine therapy versus control (using air or saline) that reported on the risk and severity of postoperative sore throat as an outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information, such as the risk of any adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included 19 studies involving 1940 participants in this updated review. Of those 1940 participants, 952 received topical or systemic lidocaine therapy and 795 were allocated to the control groups. Topical and systemic lidocaine therapy appeared to reduce the risk of postoperative sore throat (16 studies, 1774 participants, risk ratio (RR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.85), the quality of the evidence was low), although when only high-quality trials were included (eight studies, 814 participants) the effect was no longer significant (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.09). Lidocaine given systemically in two studies (320 participants) did not reveal evidence of an effect (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.05 ). The severity of sore throat as measured on a visual-analogue scale (VAS) was reduced by lidocaine therapy (six trials, 611 participants, (mean difference (MD) -10.80, 95% CI -14.63 to -6.98). The adverse effects of lidocaine were not reported in these studies, though toxicity is generally rare.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn our revised systematic review, although the results of included studies show generally positive results, they should be interpreted carefully. The effect size of lidocaine appeared to be affected by study quality; drug concentration; route of administration; management of cuff pressure during anaesthesia; the included population; and the type of outcome measured.\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 of the effect of lidocaine for preventing a sore throat in people following an operation under general anaesthetic. (General anaesthetics are medicines used to send people asleep. They can be given via an intravenous line (IV) into the person's veins, via a mask, or via an endotracheal tube placed through the mouth past the larynx (voicebox) into the trachea. In this review the anaesthetic was given via an endotracheal tube.)"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23500
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInduction of general anaesthesia can be distressing for children. Non-pharmacological methods for reducing anxiety and improving co-operation may avoid the adverse effects of preoperative sedation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions in assisting induction of anaesthesia in children by reducing their anxiety, distress or increasing their co-operation.\nSearch methods\nIn this updated review we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12) and searched the following databases from inception to 15 January 2013: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We reran the search in August 2014. We will deal with the single study found to be of interest when we next update the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials of a non-pharmacological intervention implemented on the day of surgery or anaesthesia.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in trials.\nMain results\nWe included 28 trials (2681 children) investigating 17 interventions of interest; all trials were conducted in high-income countries. Overall we judged the trials to be at high risk of bias. Except for parental acupuncture (graded low), all other GRADE assessments of the primary outcomes of comparisons were very low, indicating a high degree of uncertainty about the overall findings.\nParental presence: In five trials (557 children), parental presence at induction of anaesthesia did not reduce child anxiety compared with not having a parent present (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20). In a further three trials (267 children) where we were unable to pool results, we found no clear differences in child anxiety, whether a parent was present or not. In a single trial, child anxiety showed no significant difference whether one or two parents were present, although parental anxiety was significantly reduced when both parents were present at the induction. Parental presence was significantly less effective than sedative premedication in reducing children's anxiety at induction in three trials with 254 children (we could not pool results).\nChild interventions (passive): When a video of the child's choice was played during induction, children were significantly less anxious than controls (median difference modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS) 31.2, 95% CI 27.1 to 33.3) in a trial of 91 children. In another trial of 120 children, co-operation at induction did not differ significantly when a video fairytale was played before induction. Children exposed to low sensory stimulation were significantly less anxious than control children on introduction of the anaesthesia mask and more likely to be co-operative during induction in one trial of 70 children. Music therapy did not show a significant effect on children's anxiety in another trial of 51 children.\nChild interventions (mask introduction): We found no significant differences between a mask exposure intervention and control in a single trial of 103 children for child anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.11) although children did demonstrate significantly better co-operation in the mask exposure group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.51).\nChild interventions (interactive): In a three-arm trial of 168 children, preparation with interactive computer packages (in addition to parental presence) was more effective than verbal preparation, although differences between computer and cartoon preparation were not significant, and neither was cartoon preparation when compared with verbal preparation. Children given video games before induction were significantly less anxious at induction than those in the control group (mYPAS mean difference (MD) -9.80, 95% CI -19.42 to -0.18) and also when compared with children who were sedated with midazolam (mYPAS MD -12.20, 95% CI -21.82 to -2.58) in a trial of 112 children. When compared with parental presence only, clowns or clown doctors significantly lessened children's anxiety in the operating/induction room (mYPAS MD -24.41, 95% CI -38.43 to -10.48; random-effects, I² 75%) in three trials with a total of 133 children. However, we saw no significant differences in child anxiety in the operating room between clowns/clown doctors and sedative premedication (mYPAS MD -9.67, 95% CI -21.14 to 1.80, random-effects, I² 66%; 2 trials of 93 children). In a trial of hypnotherapy versus sedative premedication in 50 children, there were no significant differences in children's anxiety at induction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.04).\nParental interventions: Children of parents having acupuncture compared with parental sham acupuncture were less anxious during induction (mYPAS MD -17, 95% CI -30.51 to -3.49) and were more co-operative (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.53) in a single trial of 67 children. Two trials with 191 parents assessed the effects of parental video viewing but did not report any of the review's prespecified primary outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review shows that the presence of parents during induction of general anaesthesia does not diminish their child's anxiety. Potentially promising non-pharmacological interventions such as parental acupuncture; clowns/clown doctors; playing videos of the child's choice during induction; low sensory stimulation; and hand-held video games need further investigation in larger studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 28 trials (2681 children under the age of 18 years and or their parents) with a large number of interventions (17) assessed.\nThe presence of parents at induction of the child's anaesthesia has been the most commonly investigated intervention (eight trials), but has not been shown to reduce anxiety or distress in children, or increase their co-operation during induction of anaesthesia.\nAlthough parents should not be actively discouraged from being present if they prefer to do so, equally parents should not be encouraged to be present at their child's induction if they prefer not to do so.\nMost commonly other interventions are given to the child (e.g. video games or hypnosis) but sometimes the intervention is given to the parent. One study of acupuncture for parents found that the parent was less anxious, and the child was more co-operative, at induction of anaesthesia. Another study of giving parents information, in the form of pamphlets or videos, failed to show an effect. In other studies looking at interventions for children, clowns or clown doctors, a quiet environment, video games and computer packages (but not music therapy) each showed benefits such as improved co-operation in the children."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23501
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nClavicle (collarbone) fractures account for around 4% of all fractures. Most (76%) clavicle fractures involve the middle-third section of the clavicle. Treatment of these fractures is usually non-surgical (conservative). Commonly used treatments are arm slings, strapping and figure-of-eight bandages.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of different methods for conservative (non-operative) treatment for acute (treated soon after injury) middle third clavicle fractures in adolescents and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), LILACS (from 1982), trial registers, orthopaedic proceedings and reference lists of articles. We applied no language or publication restrictions. The date of the last search was 5 January 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials testing conservative interventions for treating adolescents and adults with acute middle third clavicle fractures. The primary outcomes were shoulder function or disability, pain and treatment failure.\nData collection and analysis\nFor this update, two review authors selected eligible trials, independently assessed risk of bias and cross-checked data extraction. We calculated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous variables, and mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables. There was very limited pooling of data.\nMain results\nWe included four trials in this review with 416 participants, who were aged 14 years or above. One new trial was included in this update.\nVery low quality evidence was available from three trials (296 participants) that compared the figure-of-eight bandage with an arm sling for treating acute middle third clavicle fractures. The three trials were underpowered and compromised by poor methodology. Shoulder function was assessed in different ways in the three trials (data for 51, 61 and 152 participants); each trial provided very low quality evidence of similar shoulder function in the two groups. Pooled data from two trials (203 participants) showed no clinical difference between groups after two weeks in pain (visual analogue scale: 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain); mean difference (MD) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to 1.21; I² = 74%; very low quality evidence). A third trial (61 participants) provided very low quality evidence based on a non-validated scoring system of more pain and discomfort during the course of treatment in the figure-of-eight group. Treatment failure, measured in terms of subsequent surgery, was not reported in two trials; the third trial (152 participants) reported one participant in the arm sling group had surgery for secondary plexus nerve palsy. There was very low quality evidence from one trial (148 participants) of little difference in time to clinical fracture healing (MD 0.2 weeks, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.51); data from four non-symptomatic non-unions in the figure-of-eight group were not included. The very low evidence quality data for individual adverse outcomes (poor cosmetic appearance; change in allocated treatment due to pain and discomfort, worsened fracture position on healing; shortening > 15 mm; non-symptomatic non-union and permanent pain) did not confirm a difference between the two groups. There was no clear between group difference in the time to return to school or work activities (MD -0.12 weeks, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.45; 176 participants; very low quality evidence).\nModerate quality evidence was available from one trial (120 participants; reporting data for 101 participants), which evaluated therapeutic ultrasound. This trial was at low risk of bias but was underpowered and did not report on shoulder function or quality of life. The trial found no evidence of a difference between low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and placebo in pain, treatment failure (subsequent surgery: 6/52 versus 5/49; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.47), the time to clinical fracture healing (MD -0.32 days, 95% CI -5.85 to 5.21), adverse events (one case of skin irritation was reported in each group) or time to resume previous activities.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence available from randomised controlled trials is insufficient to determine which methods of conservative treatment are the most appropriate for acute middle third clavicle fractures in adolescents and adults. Further research is warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the scientific literature up to January 2016 and found four relevant studies with a total of 416 participants. The four small studies had methodological limitations that may affect the reliability of their findings. The types of conservative treatments evaluated were figure-of-bandage versus arm sling in three trials and therapeutic ultrasound versus sham treatment (placebo) in one trial."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23502
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nApproximately 10% of all newborns require resuscitation at birth. Training healthcare providers in standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training (SFNRT) programmes may improve neonatal outcomes. Substantial healthcare resources are expended on SFNRT.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether SFNRT programmes reduce neonatal mortality and morbidity, improve acquisition and retention of knowledge and skills, or change teamwork and resuscitation behaviour.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, ongoing trials and conference proceedings in April 2014 and updated in March 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials including cluster-randomised trials, comparing a SFNRT with no SFNRT, additions to SFNRT or types of SFNRT, and reporting at least one of our specified outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors extracted data independently and performed statistical analyses including typical risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), mean difference (MD), and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) (all with 95% confidence intervals (CI)). We analysed cluster-randomised trials using the generic inverse variance and the approximate analysis methods.\nMain results\nWe identified two community-based and three manikin-based trials that assessed the effect of SFNRT compared with no SFNRT. Very low quality evidence from one study suggested improvement in acquisition of knowledge (RR 5.96, 95% CI 3.60 to 9.87) and skills (RR 170, 95% CI 10.8 to 2711) and retention of knowledge (RR 3.60, 95% CI 2.43 to 5.35) and the other study suggested improvement in resuscitation and behavioural scores.\nWe identified three community-based cluster-randomised trials in developing countries comparing SFNRT with basic resuscitation training (Early Newborn Care). In this setting, there was moderate quality evidence that SFNRT decreased early neonatal mortality (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 3 studies, 66,162 neonates) and when analysed by the approximate analysis method (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; RD -0.0044, 95% CI -0.0082 to -0.0006; NNTB 227, 95% CI 122 to 1667). Low quality evidence from one trial showed that SFNRT may decrease 28-day mortality (typical RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91) but the effect on late neonatal mortality was more uncertain (typical RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.11). None of our a priori defined neonatal morbidities were reported. We did not identify any randomised studies in the developed world.\nWe identified two trials that compared SFNRT with team training to SFNRT. Teamwork training of physician trainees with simulation may increase any teamwork behaviour (assessed by frequency) (MD 2.41, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.11) and decrease resuscitation duration (MD -149.54, 95% CI -214.73 to -84.34) but may lead to little or no difference in Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) scores (MD 1.40, 95% CI -2.02 to 4.82; 98 participants, low quality evidence).\nWe identified two trials that compared SFNRT with booster courses to SFNRT. It is uncertain whether booster courses improve retention of resuscitation knowledge (84 participants, very low quality evidence) but may improve procedural and behavioural skills (40 participants, very low quality evidence).\nWe identified two trials on decision support tools, one on a cognitive aid that did not change resuscitation scores and the other on an electronic decision support tool that improved the frequency of correct decision making on positive pressure ventilation, cardiac compressions and frequency of fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) adjustments (97 participants, very low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nSFNRT compared to basic newborn care or basic newborn resuscitation, in developing countries, results in a reduction of early neonatal and 28-day mortality. Randomised trials of SFNRT should report on neonatal morbidity including hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Innovative educational methods that enhance knowledge and skills and teamwork behaviour should be evaluated.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results and quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Moderate quality evidence from three studies suggested that training in newborn resuscitation probably decreases newborn deaths in the first seven days after birth. Low quality evidence from one study suggested that newborn resuscitation training may decrease newborn deaths in the first 28 days after birth. All three studies were performed in low-income settings and their findings may have limited applicability to high-income settings. We also found that teaching teamwork in addition to resuscitation training may improve team behaviour and decrease time for resuscitation (two studies, low quality evidence) but the effect on performance on resuscitation was uncertain. It is uncertain whether resuscitation programmes increase learners' knowledge and skills immediately and knowledge at six months because the quality of evidence was very low. Similarly, whether boosters to neonatal resuscitation help in retaining knowledge or performing resuscitation appropriately remain uncertain (the quality of evidence was very low). Also, whether visual or electronic aids for helping making decisions during resuscitation, improve resuscitation performance was uncertain (one study did not show effect but one electronic decision support tool with prompts improved resuscitation performance) (low quality evidence). We strongly encourage future studies to report outcomes related to long-term health, such as brain injury due to lack of oxygen, fits and long-term brain development. Effective methods to enhance teamwork behaviour, learning and retention of resuscitation knowledge and skills are needed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23503
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcquired hearing loss is common and its incidence increases markedly with age. In most people, 'age-related' hearing loss is sensorineural (due to the loss of cochlear hair cells) and bilateral, affecting both ears to the same degree. Hearing loss categorised as mild, moderate or severe is primarily managed with hearing aids. People with bilateral hearing loss may be offered one aid, fitted to one specific ear, or two aids fitted to both ears. There is uncertainty about the relative benefits to people with hearing loss of these different strategies.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids in adults with a bilateral hearing impairment.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Register of Studies Online; PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 8 June 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the fitting of two versus one ear-level acoustic hearing aids in adults (over 18 years) with a bilateral hearing impairment, both ears being eligible for hearing aids.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were patient preference for bilateral or unilateral aids, hearing-specific health-related quality of life and adverse effects (pain or discomfort in the ear, initiation or exacerbation of middle or outer ear infection). Secondary outcomes included: usage of hearing aids (as measured by, for example, data logging or battery consumption), generic health-related quality of life, listening ability and audiometric benefit measured as binaural loudness summation. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.\nMain results\nWe included four cross-over RCTs with a total of 209 participants, ranging in age from 23 to 85 and with a preponderance of men. All the studies allowed the use of hearing aids for a total period of at least eight weeks before questions on preference were asked. All studies recruited patients with bilateral hearing loss but there was considerable variation in the types and degree of sensorineural hearing loss that the participants were experiencing.\nThree of the studies were published before the mid-1990s whereas the fourth study was published in 2011. Therefore, only the most recent study used hearing aids incorporating technology comparable to that currently readily available in high-income settings. Of the four studies, two were conducted in the UK in National Health Service (NHS – public sector) patients: one recruited patients from primary care with hearing loss detected by a screening programme whereas the other recruited patients who had been referred by their primary care practitioner to an otolaryngology department for hearing aids. The other two studies were conducted in the United States: one study recruited only military personnel or veterans with noise-induced hearing loss whereas about half of the participants in the other study were veterans.\nOnly one primary outcome (patient preference) was reported in all studies. The percentage of patients who preferred bilateral hearing aids varied between studies: this was 54% (51 out of 94 participants), 39% (22 out of 56), 55% (16 out of 29) and 77% (23 out of 30), respectively. We have not combined the data from these four studies. The evidence for this outcome is of very low quality.\nThe other outcomes of interest were not reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review identified only four studies comparing the use of one hearing aid with two. The studies were small and included participants of widely varying ages. There was also considerable variation in the types and degree of sensorineural hearing loss that the participants were experiencing.\nFor the most part, the types of hearing aid evaluated would now be regarded, in high-income settings, as 'old technology', with only one study looking at 'modern' digital aids. However, the relevance of this is uncertain, as this review did not evaluate the differences in outcomes between the different types of technology.\nWe were unable to pool data from the four studies and the very low quality of the evidence leads us to conclude that we do not know if people with hearing loss have a preference for one aid or two. Similarly, we do not know if hearing-specific health-related quality of life, or any of our other outcomes, are better with bilateral or unilateral aids.\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": "Hearing loss can be present from birth or can come on in later life. The latter is called 'acquired' hearing loss and is common. Its incidence increases markedly with age. In most people, 'age-related' hearing loss is due to the loss of cells in the inner ear (so called 'sensorineural hearing loss') and affects both ears to the same degree. Hearing loss categorised as mild, moderate or severe is primarily managed with hearing aids. People with bilateral hearing loss may be offered one aid, fitted to one specific ear, or two aids fitted to both ears. There is uncertainty about the relative benefits to patients of these different strategies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23504
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision to wean; the main reason cited for weaning is associated with lactation complications, such as mastitis.\nMastitis is an inflammation of the breast, with or without infection. It can be viewed as a continuum of disease, from non-infective inflammation of the breast to infection that may lead to abscess formation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of preventive strategies (for example, breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies) on the occurrence or recurrence of non-infective or infective mastitis in breastfeeding women post-childbirth.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing mastitis in postpartum breastfeeding women.\nQuasi-randomised controlled trials and trials reported only in abstract form were eligible. We attempted to contact the authors to obtain any unpublished results, wherever possible.\nInterventions for preventing mastitis may include: probiotics, specialist breastfeeding advice and holistic approaches.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 10 trials (3034 women). Nine trials (2395 women) contributed data. Generally, the trials were at low risk of bias in most domains but some were high risk for blinding, attrition bias, and selective reporting. Selection bias (allocation concealment) was generally unclear. The certainty of evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and to imprecision (low numbers of women participating in the trials). Conflicts of interest on the part of trial authors, and the involvement of industry funders may also have had an impact on the certainty of the evidence.\nMost trials reported our primary outcome of incidence of mastitis but there were almost no data relating to adverse effects, breast pain, duration of breastfeeding, nipple damage, breast abscess or recurrence of mastitis.\nProbiotics versus placebo\nProbiotics may reduce the risk of mastitis more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.75; 2 trials; 399 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if probiotics reduce the risk of breast pain or nipple damage because the certainty of evidence is very low. Results for the biggest of these trials (639 women) are currently unavailable due to a contractual agreement between the probiotics supplier and the trialists. Adverse effects were reported in one trial, where no woman in either group experienced any adverse effects.\nAntibiotics versus placebo or usual care\nThe risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and usual care or placebo (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.34; 3 trials; 429 women; low-certainty evidence). The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and fusidic acid ointment (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.81; 1 trial; 36 women; low-certainty evidence) or mupirocin ointment (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.89; 1 trial; 44 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. None of the trials reported adverse effects.\nTopical treatments versus breastfeeding advice\nThe risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.22; 1 trial; 40 women; low-certainty evidence) and mupirocin ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; 1 trial; 48 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs.\nOne trial (42 women) compared topical treatments to each other. The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid and mupirocin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.00; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported.\nSpecialist breastfeeding education versus usual care\nThe risk of mastitis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.95; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.37; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported.\nAnti-secretory factor-inducing cereal versus standard cereal\nThe risk of mastitis (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72; 1 trial; 29 women; low-certainty evidence) and recurrence of mastitis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.57; 1 trial; 7 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported.\nAcupoint massage versus routine care\nAcupoint massage probably reduces the risk of mastitis compared to routine care (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78;1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; 1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported.\nBreast massage and low frequency pulse treatment versus routine care\nBreast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may reduce risk of mastitis (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 1 trial; 300 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is some evidence that acupoint massage is probably better than routine care, probiotics may be better than placebo, and breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may be better than routine care for preventing mastitis. However, it is important to note that we are aware of at least one large trial investigating probiotics whose results have not been made public, therefore, the evidence presented here is incomplete.\nThe available evidence regarding other interventions, including breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies, suggests these may be little better than routine care for preventing mastitis but our conclusions are uncertain due to the low certainty of the evidence.\nFuture trials should recruit sufficiently large numbers of women in order to detect clinically important differences between interventions and results of future trials should be made publicly available.\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": "Mastitis is a common complication of breastfeeding. It causes considerable pain and suffering for women and may stop some mothers from breastfeeding their babies for as long as they would like. Several factors contribute to the development of mastitis, such as blocked ducts, the breasts being too full with milk, cracked nipples and the baby being unable to latch on correctly. Mastitis can occur in one or both breasts and be associated with a number of symptoms including breast pain, redness and swelling, and flu-like symptoms. The symptoms can last from two to three days up to a couple of weeks or more."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23505
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchiectasis is predominantly an acquired disease process that represents the end stage of a variety of unrelated pulmonary insults. It is defined as persistent irreversible dilatation and distortion of medium-sized bronchi. It has been suggested that with widespread use of high-resolution computed tomography, more bronchiectasis diagnoses are being made. Patients diagnosed with bronchiectasis frequently have difficulty expectorating sputum. Sputum therefore is retained in the lungs and may become infected, leading to further lung damage. Mucolytic agents target hypersecretion or changed physiochemical properties of sputum to make it easier to clear. One drug, recombinant human DNase, breaks down the DNA that is released at the site of infection by neutrophils.\nMucus clearance along with antimicrobial therapy remains an integral part of bronchiectasis management. Chest physiotherapy along with mucolytic agents is commonly used in practice without clear supportive evidence.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether ingested or inhaled mucolytics are effective in the treatment of patients with bronchiectasis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted experts in the field and drug companies. Searches were current as of June 2013.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of mucolytic treatment in people with bronchiectasis but not cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nData extraction was performed independently by two review authors. Study authors were contacted for confirmation.\nMain results\nFour trials (with a combined total of 528 adult participants) were included, but almost none of the data from these studies could be aggregated in a meta-analysis.\nOne trial (with 88 participants) compared bromhexine versus placebo. Compared with placebo, high doses of bromhexine with antibiotics eased difficulty in expectoration (mean difference (MD) -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.81 to -0.25 at 16 days); the quality of the evidence was rated as low. A reduction in sputum production was noted with bromhexine (MD -21.5%, 95% CI -38.9 to -4.1 at day 16); again the quality of the evidence was rated as low. No significant differences between bromhexine and placebo were observed with respect to reported adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 2.93; 95% CI 0.12 to 73.97), and again the quality of the evidence was rated as low.\nIn a single small, blinded but not placebo-controlled trial of older (> 55 years) participants with stable bronchiectasis and mucus hypersecretion, erdosteine combined with physiotherapy over a 15-day period improved spirometry and sputum purulence more effectively compared with physiotherapy alone. The spirometric improvement was small (MD 200 mL in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and 300 mL in forced vital capacity (FVC)) and was apparent only at day 15, not at earlier time points.\nThe remaining two studies (with a combined total of 410 participants) compared recombinant human DNase (RhDNase) versus placebo. These two studies were very different (one was a two-week study of 61 participants, and the other ran for 24 weeks and included 349 participants), and the opportunity for combining data from the two studies was very limited. Compared with placebo, recombinant human DNase showed no difference in FEV1 or FVC in the smaller study but showed a significant negative effect on FEV1 in the larger and longer study. For reported adverse events, no significant differences between recombinant human DNase and placebo were noted. In all of the above comparisons of recombinant human DNase versus placebo, the quality of the evidence was judged to be low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the harmful effects of recombinant human DNase in one trial and no evidence of benefit, this drug should be avoided in non–cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, except in the context of clinical trials. Evidence is insufficient to permit evaluation of the routine use of other mucolytics for bronchiectasis. High doses of bromhexine coupled with antibiotics may help with sputum production and clearance, but long-term data and robust clinical outcomes are lacking. Similarly, erdosteine may be a useful adjunct to physiotherapy in stable patients with mucus hypersecretion, but robust longer-term trials are required.\nGenerally, clinical trials in children on the use of various mucolytic agents are lacking. As the number of agents available on the market, such as RhDNase, acetylcysteine and bromhexine, is increasing, improvement of the evidence base is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Details of the way patients were allocated to receive or not receive mucolytics were not clearly described in any of the four studies. This was considered carefully in the review in relation to our level of uncertainty in interpreting the results. When this is taken into account, together with the imprecision of the results, estimates of the usefulness of mucolytics as treatment were generally judged to be of low quality in relation to (non–cystic fibrosis) bronchiectasis."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23506
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Some women are at increased risk of VTE during pregnancy and the early postnatal period (e.g. caesarean section, family history of VTE, or thrombophilia), and so prophylaxis may be considered. As some methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and risk of VTE is often low, benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period on the risk of venous thromboembolic disease and adverse effects in women at increased risk of VTE.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (18 October 2019). In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for unpublished, planned and ongoing trial reports (18 October 2019).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, or two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and judged certainty of evidence for selected critical outcomes (using GRADE). We conducted fixed-effect meta-analysis and reported data (all dichotomous) as summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nTwenty-nine trials (involving 3839 women), overall at moderate to high risk of bias were included. Trials were conducted across the antenatal, peripartum and postnatal periods, with most in high-income countries. Interventions included types and regimens of heparin (low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH)), hydroxyethyl starch (HES), and compression stockings or devices. Data were limited due to a small number of trials in comparisons and/or few or no events reported. All critical outcomes (assessed for comparisons of heparin versus no treatment/placebo, and LMWH versus UFH) were considered to have very low-certainty evidence, downgraded mainly for study limitations and imprecise effect estimates. Maternal death was not reported in most studies.\nAntenatal (± postnatal) prophylaxis\nFor the primary outcomes symptomatic thromboembolic events pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and the critical outcome of adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment, the evidence was very uncertain.\nSymptomatic thromboembolic events:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.98; 4 trials, 476 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49; 4 trials, 404 women; very low-certainty evidence);\nSymptomatic PE:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.02 to 7.14; 3 trials, 187 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women);\nSymptomatic DVT:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.10; 4 trials, 227 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women);\nAdverse effects sufficient to stop treatment:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.31; 1 trial, 139 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; 2 trials, 226 women; very low-certainty evidence).\nPeripartum/postnatal prophylaxis\nVaginal or caesarean birth\nWhen UFH and no treatment were compared, the effects on symptomatic thromboembolic events (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), symptomatic PE (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.34; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), and symptomatic DVT (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.55; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence) were very uncertain. Maternal death and adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported.\nCaesarean birth\nSymptomatic thromboembolic events:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence);\nSymptomatic PE:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.25 to 4.87; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 217 women);\nSymptomatic DVT:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.24 to 6.94; 5 trials, 1140 women; very low-certainty evidence); LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence);\nMaternal death:\n- heparin versus placebo (no events, 1 trial, 300 women);\nAdverse effects sufficient to stop treatment:\n- heparin versus placebo (no events; 1 trial, 140 women).\nPostnatal prophylaxis\nNo events were reported for LMWH versus no treatment/placebo for: symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT (all 2 trials, 58 women), or maternal death (1 trial, 24 women). Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported.\nWe were unable to conduct subgroup analyses due to lack of data.\nSensitivity analysis including the nine studies at low risk of bias did not impact overall findings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is very uncertain about benefits and harms of VTE thromboprophylaxis in women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period at increased risk of VTE. Further high-quality very large-scale randomised trials are needed to determine effects of currently used treatments in women with different VTE risk factors. As sufficiently large definitive trials are unlikely to be funded, secondary data analyses based on high-quality registry data are important.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Women at increased risk of VTE during pregnancy and in the six weeks following childbirth are commonly given treatments to prevent blood clots. Treatments vary due to lack of clear guidelines. The treatments to prevent VTE include heparin type drugs, aspirin and the wearing of compression stockings to improve blood flow in the legs. Some of the treatments can potentially harm women, for example, by increasing blood loss after childbirth or interfering with wound healing."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23507
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHelicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection has been implicated in a number of malignancies and non-malignant conditions including peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia, recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anaemia, idiopathic thrombocytopaenia purpura, and colorectal adenomas. The confirmatory diagnosis of H pylori is by endoscopic biopsy, followed by histopathological examination using haemotoxylin and eosin (H & E) stain or special stains such as Giemsa stain and Warthin-Starry stain. Special stains are more accurate than H & E stain. There is significant uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for diagnosis of H pylori.\nObjectives\nTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of urea breath test, serology, and stool antigen test, used alone or in combination, for diagnosis of H pylori infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic people, so that eradication therapy for H pylori can be started.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Science Citation Index and the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Database on 4 March 2016. We screened references in the included studies to identify additional studies. We also conducted citation searches of relevant studies, most recently on 4 December 2016. We did not restrict studies by language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.\nSelection criteria\nWe included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated at least one of the index tests (urea breath test using isotopes such as 13C or 14C, serology and stool antigen test) against the reference standard (histopathological examination using H & E stain, special stains or immunohistochemical stain) in people suspected of having H pylori infection.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the references to identify relevant studies and independently extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed meta-analysis by using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to estimate and compare SROC curves. Where appropriate, we used bivariate or univariate logistic regression models to estimate summary sensitivities and specificities.\nMain results\nWe included 101 studies involving 11,003 participants, of which 5839 participants (53.1%) had H pylori infection. The prevalence of H pylori infection in the studies ranged from 15.2% to 94.7%, with a median prevalence of 53.7% (interquartile range 42.0% to 66.5%). Most of the studies (57%) included participants with dyspepsia and 53 studies excluded participants who recently had proton pump inhibitors or antibiotics.There was at least an unclear risk of bias or unclear applicability concern for each study.\nOf the 101 studies, 15 compared the accuracy of two index tests and two studies compared the accuracy of three index tests. Thirty-four studies (4242 participants) evaluated serology; 29 studies (2988 participants) evaluated stool antigen test; 34 studies (3139 participants) evaluated urea breath test-13C; 21 studies (1810 participants) evaluated urea breath test-14C; and two studies (127 participants) evaluated urea breath test but did not report the isotope used. The thresholds used to define test positivity and the staining techniques used for histopathological examination (reference standard) varied between studies. Due to sparse data for each threshold reported, it was not possible to identify the best threshold for each test.\nUsing data from 99 studies in an indirect test comparison, there was statistical evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy between urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology and stool antigen test (P = 0.024). The diagnostic odds ratios for urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test were 153 (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.7 to 316), 105 (95% CI 74.0 to 150), 47.4 (95% CI 25.5 to 88.1) and 45.1 (95% CI 24.2 to 84.1). The sensitivity (95% CI) estimated at a fixed specificity of 0.90 (median from studies across the four tests), was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) for urea breath test-13C, 0.92 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.94) for urea breath test-14C, 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) for serology, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.90) for stool antigen test. This implies that on average, given a specificity of 0.90 and prevalence of 53.7% (median specificity and prevalence in the studies), out of 1000 people tested for H pylori infection, there will be 46 false positives (people without H pylori infection who will be diagnosed as having H pylori infection). In this hypothetical cohort, urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test will give 30 (95% CI 15 to 58), 42 (95% CI 30 to 58), 86 (95% CI 50 to 140), and 89 (95% CI 52 to 146) false negatives respectively (people with H pylori infection for whom the diagnosis of H pylori will be missed).\nDirect comparisons were based on few head-to-head studies. The ratios of diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were 0.68 (95% CI 0.12 to 3.70; P = 0.56) for urea breath test-13C versus serology (seven studies), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.14 to 5.56; P = 0.84) for urea breath test-13C versus stool antigen test (seven studies). The 95% CIs of these estimates overlap with those of the ratios of DORs from the indirect comparison. Data were limited or unavailable for meta-analysis of other direct comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people without a history of gastrectomy and those who have not recently had antibiotics or proton ,pump inhibitors, urea breath tests had high diagnostic accuracy while serology and stool antigen tests were less accurate for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.This is based on an indirect test comparison (with potential for bias due to confounding), as evidence from direct comparisons was limited or unavailable. The thresholds used for these tests were highly variable and we were unable to identify specific thresholds that might be useful in clinical practice.\nWe need further comparative studies of high methodological quality to obtain more reliable evidence of relative accuracy between the tests. Such studies should be conducted prospectively in a representative spectrum of participants and clearly reported to ensure low risk of bias. Most importantly, studies should prespecify and clearly report thresholds used, and should avoid inappropriate exclusions.\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 found 101 studies which included 11,003 people who were tested for H pylori. Of these 11,003 participants, 5839 (53.1%) had H pylori infection. All the studies used one of the three tests listed above and compared these test results with the diagnosis given by endoscopic biopsy. Endoscopic biopsy involves obtaining tissue from the stomach using a thin flexible tube introduced through the mouth and testing for the presence of H pylori under the microscope. It is currently the most accurate available test, however it causes physical discomfort to the patient, with associated risks for harm. This is in contrast to the alternative non-invasive tests in this review which are significantly less uncomfortable and have minimal or no risk of harm, making them desirable alternatives if they can be shown to be as accurate at diagnosing H pylori as endoscopic biopsy. Most of the studies included participants with heart burn or similar problems in the stomach and excluded participants who had previously undergone partial removal of the stomach and those having treatment for H pylori.\nThirty-four studies (4242 participants) used serology; 29 studies (2988 participants) used stool antigen test; 34 studies (3139 participants) used urea breath test-13C; 21 studies (1810 participants) used urea breath test-14C; and two studies (127 participants) used urea breath test but did not report the type of carbon used. Studies varied in the limit they used before saying a test was positive for H pylori infection and the type of stains used to examine the biopsy material. When we looked at all the data we found that urea breath tests were more accurate than blood and stool tests. The results mean that, on average, if 1000 people are tested, there will be 46 people without H pylori who will be misdiagnosed as having H pylori. Also, there will be 30, 42, 86, and 89 people with H pylori infection for whom the diagnosis of H pylori infection will be missed by urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test, respectively. When we looked at the seven studies which compared urea breath test-13C and serology, or urea breath test-13C and stool antigen tests in the same participants, the results were uncertain and we cannot tell which test is more accurate."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23508
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis.\nAnticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life.\nHigher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants)\nHigher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data).\nAnticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants)\nAnticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data).\nOngoing studies\nWe found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.\nCompared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data).\nAlthough we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is COVID-19?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "COVID-19 typically affects the lungs and airways; however, in addition to respiratory problems, about 16% of people hospitalised with COVID-19 experience problems with their blood vessels, leading to blood clots forming in the arteries, veins and lungs. Nearly half of all people with severe COVID-19 in intensive care units develop clots in their veins or arteries."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23509
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBuerger's disease (thromboangiitis obliterans) is a non-atherosclerotic, segmental inflammatory pathology that most commonly affects the small and medium sized arteries, veins, and nerves in the upper and lower extremities. The aetiology is unknown, but involves hereditary susceptibility, tobacco exposure, immune and coagulation responses. In many cases, there is no possibility of revascularisation to improve the condition. Pharmacological treatment is an option for patients with severe complications, such as ischaemic ulcers or rest pain.This is an update of the review first published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of any pharmacological agent (intravenous or oral) compared with placebo or any other pharmacological agent in patients with Buerger's disease.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials register to 15 October 2019. The review authors searched LILACS, ISRCTN, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, clincialtrials.gov and the OpenGrey Database to 5 January 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving pharmacological agents used in the treatment of Buerger's disease.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors, independently assessed the studies, extracted data and performed data analysis.\nMain results\nNo new studies were identified for this update. Five randomised controlled trials (total 602 participants) compared prostacyclin analogue with placebo, aspirin, or a prostaglandin analogue, and folic acid with placebo. No studies assessed other pharmacological agents such as cilostazol, clopidogrel and pentoxifylline or compared oral versus intravenous prostanoid.\nCompared with aspirin, intravenous prostacyclin analogue iloprost improved ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 2.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 6.11; 98 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and helped to eradicate rest pain after 28 days (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.52; 133 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), although amputation rates were similar six months after treatment (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 95 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWhen comparing prostacyclin (iloprost and clinprost) with prostaglandin (alprostadil) analogues, ulcer healing was similar (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.69; 89 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), as was the eradication of rest pain after 28 days (RR 1.57; 95% CI 0.72 to 3.44; 38 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), while amputation rates were not measured.\nCompared with placebo, the effects of oral prostacyclin analogue iloprost were similar for: healing ischaemic ulcers (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.54 to 2.29; 133 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.93; 135 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), eradication of rest pain after eight weeks (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.63; 207 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.59; 201 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and amputation rates after six months (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56; 209 participants; 1 study, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.31; 213 participants; 1 study).\nWhen comparing folic acid with placebo in patients with Buerger's disease and hyperhomocysteinaemia, pain scores were similar, there were no new cases of amputation in either group, and ulcer healing was not assessed (very low-certainty evidence).\nTreatment side effects such as headaches, flushing or nausea were not associated with treatment interruptions or more serious consequences. Outcomes such as amputation-free survival, walking distance or pain-free walking distance, and ankle brachial index were not assessed by any study.\nOverall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to moderate, with few studies, small numbers of participants, variation in severity of disease of participants between studies and missing information (for example regarding baseline tobacco exposure).\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests that intravenous iloprost (prostacyclin analogue) is more effective than aspirin for eradicating rest pain and healing ischaemic ulcers in Buerger’s disease, but oral iloprost is not more effective than placebo. Very low and low-certainty evidence suggests there is no clear difference between prostacyclin (iloprost and clinprost) and the prostaglandin analogue alprostadil for healing ulcers and relieving pain respectively in severe Buerger’s disease. Very low-certainty evidence suggests there is no clear difference in pain scores and amputation rates between folic acid and placebo, in people with Buerger's disease and hyperhomocysteinaemia. Further well designed RCTs assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological agents (intravenous or oral) in people with Buerger's disease are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to moderate. we downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the small numbers of studies, small numbers of participants, variation in severity of disease of participants between studies, and missing information (for example baseline tobacco exposure information). Further well designed RCTs assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological agents (intravenous or oral) in people with Buerger's disease are needed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23510
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe use of short-acting insulin analogues (insulin lispro, insulin aspart, insulin glulisine) for adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues compared to regular human insulin in adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.\nSearch methods\nFor this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 31 October 2018. We placed no restrictions on the language of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues to regular human insulin in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes, who were not pregnant.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed dichotomous outcomes by risk ratios (RR), and Peto odds ratios (POR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed continuous outcomes by mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed trials for certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified 10 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, randomising 2751 participants; 1388 participants were randomised to receive insulin analogues and 1363 participants to receive regular human insulin. The duration of the intervention ranged from 24 to 104 weeks, with a mean of about 41 weeks. The trial populations showed diversity in disease duration, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. None of the trials were blinded, so the risk of performance bias and detection bias, especially for subjective outcomes, such as hypoglycaemia, was high in nine of 10 trials from which we extracted data. Several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.\nNone of the included trials defined all-cause mortality as a primary outcome. Six trials provided Information on the number of participants who died during the trial, with five deaths out of 1272 participants (0.4%) in the insulin analogue groups and three deaths out of 1247 participants (0.2%) in the regular human insulin groups (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.64; P = 0.48; moderate-certainty evidence). Six trials, with 2509 participants, assessed severe hypoglycaemia differently, therefore, we could not summarise the results with a meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events was low, and none of the trials showed a clear difference between the two intervention arms (low-certainty evidence).\nThe MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change was -0.03% (95% CI -0.16 to 0.09; P = 0.60; 9 trials, 2608 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction ranged between -0.31% and 0.25%. The MD in the overall number of non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes per participant per month was 0.08 events (95% CI 0.00 to 0.16; P = 0.05; 7 trials, 2667 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -0.03 and 0.19 events per participant per month. The results provided for nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were of questionable validity. Overall, there was no clear difference between the two short-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin. Two trials assessed health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction, but we considered the results for both outcomes to be unreliable (very low-certainty evidence).\nNo trial was designed to investigate possible long term effects (all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications of diabetes), especially in participants with diabetes-related complications. No trial reported on socioeconomic effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur analysis found no clear benefits of short-acting insulin analogues over regular human insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was poor and results on patient-relevant outcomes, like all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were sparse. Long-term efficacy and safety data are needed to draw conclusions about the effects of short-acting insulin analogues on patient-relevant outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 10 randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) comparing the short-acting insulin analogues insulin lispro, insulin aspart, or insulin glulisine to regular human insulin in 2751 participants. The people in the included trials were monitored (followed) for 24 to 104 weeks.\nThis evidence is up to date as of 31 October 2018."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23511
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOne to eight per cent of women suffer third-degree perineal tear (anal sphincter injury) and fourth-degree perineal tear (rectal mucosa injury) during vaginal birth, and these tears are more common after forceps delivery (28%) and midline episiotomies. Third- and fourth-degree tears can become contaminated with bacteria from the rectum and this significantly increases in the chance of perineal wound infection. Prophylactic antibiotics might have a role in preventing this infection.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for reducing maternal morbidity and side effects in third- and fourth-degree perineal tear during vaginal birth.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2014) and the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing outcomes of prophylactic antibiotics versus placebo or no antibiotics in third- and fourth-degree perineal tear during vaginal birth.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the trial reports for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe identified and included one trial (147 women from a pre-planned sample size of 310 women) that compared the effect of prophylactic antibiotic (single-dose, second-generation cephalosporin - cefotetan or cefoxitin, 1 g intravenously) on postpartum perineal wound complications in third- or fourth-degree perineal tears compared with placebo. Perineal wound complications (wound disruption and purulent discharge) at the two-week postpartum check up were 8.20% and 24.10% in the treatment and the control groups respectively (risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.96). However, the high failed-appointment rate may limit the generalisability of the results. The overall risk of bias was low except for incomplete outcome data. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was moderate for infection rate at two weeks' postpartum, and low for infection rate at six weeks' postpartum.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough the data suggest that prophylactic antibiotics help to prevent perineal wound complications following third- or fourth-degree perineal tear, loss to follow-up was very high. The results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one small trial.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The included study was of high methodological quality except for incomplete follow-up. We assessed reduction of perineal wound infection in third- or fourth-degree tear by antibiotic prophylaxis as low to moderate quality of the evidence. However, the results are based on one small trial and there was a high loss to follow-up. More research is needed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23512
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIntraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation may decrease pain in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the optimal method to administer the local anaesthetic is unknown.\nObjectives\nTo determine the optimal local anaesthetic agent, the optimal timing, and the optimal delivery method of the local anaesthetic agent used for intraperitoneal instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (WHO ICTRP) to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials for assessment of benefit and comparative non-randomised studies for the assessment of treatment-related harms.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different methods of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials with 798 participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy randomised to different methods of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only people with low anaesthetic risk. The comparisons included in the trials that met the eligibility criteria were the following; comparison of one local anaesthetic agent with another local anaesthetic agent (three trials); comparison of timing of delivery (six trials); comparison of different methods of delivery of the anaesthetic agent (two trials); comparison of location of the instillation of the anaesthetic agent (one trial); three trials reported mortality and morbidity.\nThere were no mortalities or serious adverse events in either group in the following comparisons: bupivacaine (0/100 (0%)) versus lignocaine (0/106 (0%)) (one trial; 206 participants); just after creation of pneumoperitoneum (0/55 (0%)) versus end of surgery (0/55 (0%)) (two trials; 110 participants); just after creation of pneumoperitoneum (0/15 (0%)) versus after the end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) (one trial; 30 participants); end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) versus after the end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) (one trial; 30 participants).\nNone of the trials reported quality of life, the time taken to return to normal activity, or the time taken to return to work. The differences in the proportion of people who were discharged as day-surgery and the length of hospital stay were imprecise in all the comparisons included that reported these outcomes (very low quality evidence). There were some differences in the pain scores on the visual analogue scale (1 to 10 cm) but these were neither consistent nor robust to fixed-effect versus random-effects meta-analysis or sensitivity analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe currently available evidence is inadequate to determine the effects of one method of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation compared with any other method of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation in low anaesthetic risk individuals undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Future research\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Further trials are necessary. Such trials should include outcomes such as quality of life, the time taken to return to normal activity, and the time taken to return to work, which are important for the person undergoing the procedure and the people who provide funds for the treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23513
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnaemia is common among cancer patients and they may require red blood cell transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron might help in reducing the need for red blood cell transfusions. However, it remains unclear whether the combination of both drugs is preferable compared to using one drug.\nObjectives\nTo systematically review the effect of intravenous iron, oral iron or no iron in combination with or without ESAs to prevent or alleviate anaemia in cancer patients and to generate treatment rankings using network meta-analyses (NMAs).\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies by searching bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase; until June 2021). We also searched various registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous, oral or no iron, with or without ESAs for the prevention or alleviation of anaemia resulting from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, combination therapy or the underlying malignancy in cancer patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were on-study mortality, number of patients receiving red blood cell transfusions, number of red blood cell units, haematological response, overall mortality and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nNinety-six trials (25,157 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 62 trials (24,603 participants) could be considered in the NMA (12 different treatment options). Here we present the comparisons of ESA with or without iron and iron alone versus no treatment. Further results and subgroup analyses are described in the full text.\nOn-study mortality\nWe estimated that 92 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died up to 30 days after the active study period. Evidence from NMA (55 trials; 15,074 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (12 of 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.29; low certainty) or oral iron (34 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 27.38; low certainty) may decrease or increase and ESA alone (103 of 1000; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases on-study mortality. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (271 of 1000; RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 12.34; low certainty) may increase and oral iron alone (24 of 1000; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.00 to 19.73; low certainty) may increase or decrease on-study mortality.\nHaematological response\nWe estimated that 90 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia had a haematological response. Evidence from NMA (31 trials; 6985 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (604 of 1000; RR 6.71, 95% CI 4.93 to 9.14; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (527 of 1000; RR 5.85, 95% CI 4.06 to 8.42; moderate certainty), and ESA alone (467 of 1000; RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.02 to 6.71; moderate certainty) probably increases haematological response. Additionally, treatment with oral iron alone may increase haematological response (153 of 1000; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.20; low certainty).\nRed blood cell transfusions\nWe estimated that 360 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia needed at least one transfusion. Evidence from NMA (69 trials; 18,684 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (158 of 1000; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (144 of 1000; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.66; moderate certainty) and ESA alone (212 of 1000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.69; moderate certainty) probably decreases the need for transfusions. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (268 of 1000; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.28; low certainty) and with oral iron alone (333 of 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.57; low certainty) may decrease or increase the need for transfusions.\nOverall mortality\nWe estimated that 347 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died overall. Low-certainty evidence from NMA (71 trials; 21,576 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (507 of 1000; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.43) or oral iron (482 of 1000; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.22) and intravenous iron alone (521 of 1000; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.56) or oral iron alone (534 of 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.56) may decrease or increase overall mortality. Treatment with ESA alone may lead to little or no difference in overall mortality (357 of 1000; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; low certainty).\nThromboembolic events\nWe estimated that 36 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thromboembolic events. Evidence from NMA (50 trials; 15,408 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.41; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases and with ESA alone (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.47; high certainty) slightly increases the number of thromboembolic events. None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons.\nThrombocytopenia or haemorrhage\nWe estimated that 76 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage. Evidence from NMA (13 trials, 2744 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably leads to little or no difference in thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (76 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on other comparisons.\nHypertension\nWe estimated that 10 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed hypertension. Evidence from NMA (24 trials; 8383 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably increases the number of hypertensions (29 of 1000; RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.25; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen considering ESAs with iron as prevention for anaemia, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Results suggest that treatment with ESA and iron probably decreases number of blood transfusions, but may increase mortality and the number of thromboembolic events. For most outcomes the different comparisons within the network were not fully connected, so ranking of all treatments together was not possible. More head-to-head comparisons including all evaluated treatment combinations are needed to fill the gaps and prove results of this review.\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 identify the most effective treatments for anaemia in people with cancer and whether they cause any unwanted effects. We were interested in whether iron supplements or ESAs given alone or together affect:\n• deaths;\n• haemoglobin levels;\n• blood transfusions; and\n• unwanted effects.\nWe also wanted to know the best way to give the medicines: by injection (intravenous), or swallowed (oral)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23514
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA previous Cochrane review has shown that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) can benefit myocardial infarction and post-revascularisation patients. However, the impact on stable angina remains unclear and guidance is inconsistent. Whilst recommended in the guidelines of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology, in the UK the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) states that there is \"no evidence to suggest that CR is clinically or cost-effective for managing stable angina\".\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of exercise-based CR compared to usual care for adults with stable angina.\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches from the previous Cochrane review 'Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease' by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, CINAHL and Web of Science on 2 October 2017. We searched two trials registers, and performed reference checking and forward-citation searching of all primary studies and review articles, to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least six months, which compared structured exercise-based CR with usual care for people with stable angina.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors also independently assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE principles and we presented this information in a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nSeven studies (581 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Trials had an intervention length of 6 weeks to 12 months and follow-up length of 6 to 12 months. The comparison group in all trials was usual care (without any form of structured exercise training or advice) or a no-exercise comparator. The mean age of participants within the trials ranged from 50 to 66 years, the majority of participants being male (range: 74% to 100%). In terms of risk of bias, the majority of studies were unclear about their generation of the randomisation sequence and concealment processes. One study was at high risk of detection bias as it did not blind its participants or outcome assessors, and two studies had a high risk of attrition bias due to the numbers of participants lost to follow-up. Two trials were at high risk of outcome reporting bias. Given the high risk of bias, small number of trials and participants, and concerns about applicability, we downgraded our assessments of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE tool.\nDue to the very low-quality of the evidence base, we are uncertain about the effect of exercise-based CR on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 5.67; 195 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), acute myocardial infarction (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.63; 254 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence) and cardiovascular-related hospital admissions (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.1; 101 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). We found low-quality evidence that exercise-based CR may result in a small improvement in exercise capacity compared to control (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.70; 267 participants; 5 studies, low-quality evidence). We were unable to draw conclusions about the impact of exercise-based CR on quality of life (angina frequency and emotional health-related quality-of-life score) and CR-related adverse events (e.g. skeletomuscular injury, cardiac arrhythmia), due to the very low quality of evidence. No data were reported on return to work.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the small number of trials and their small size, potential risk of bias and concerns about imprecision and lack of applicability, we are uncertain of the effects of exercise-based CR compared to control on mortality, morbidity, cardiovascular hospital admissions, adverse events, return to work and health-related quality of life in people with stable angina. Low-quality evidence indicates that exercise-based CR may result in a small increase in exercise capacity compared to usual care. High-quality, well-reported randomised trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based CR for adults with stable angina. Such trials need to collect patient-relevant outcomes, including clinical events and health-related quality of life. They should also assess cost-effectiveness, and recruit participants that are reflective of the real-world population of people with angina.\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": "Stable angina is a form of chronic heart disease associated with ill health and increased death rates. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is a programme that helps people with heart disease gain better health. It usually involves exercising and receiving advice on ways to improve health and takes place at hospitals or within the community or at home. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom does not currently recommend cardiac rehabilitation programmes for people with angina, while European and United States guidelines do. In this review, we look at whether cardiac rehabilitation is helpful to people with stable angina. Specifically we assess whether cardiac rehabilitation is helpful in reducing death rates, the need for surgery, repeated heart attacks, healthcare usage and costs; and improving quality of life, physical fitness levels, and symptoms of angina."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23515
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe ideal quantity of dietary protein for formula-fed low birth weight infants is still a matter of debate. Protein intake must be sufficient to achieve normal growth without leading to negative effects such as acidosis, uremia, and elevated levels of circulating amino acids.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether higher (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d) versus lower (< 3.0 g/kg/d) protein intake during the initial hospital stay of formula-fed preterm infants or low birth weight infants (< 2.5 kilograms) results in improved growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes without evidence of short- or long-term morbidity.\nSpecific objectives were to examine the following comparisons of interventions and to conduct subgroup analyses if possible.\n1. Low protein intake if the amount was less than 3.0 g/kg/d.\n2. High protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 3.0 g/kg/d but less than 4.0 g/kg/d.\n3. Very high protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 4.0 g/kg/d.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), in the Cochrane Library (August 2, 2019); OVID MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, and Ovid MEDLINE(R) (to August 2, 2019); MEDLINE via PubMed (to August 2, 2019) for the previous year; and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to August 2, 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs contrasting levels of formula protein intake as low (< 3.0 g/kg/d), high (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d), or very high (≥ 4.0 g/kg/d) in formula-fed hospitalized neonates weighing less than 2.5 kilograms. We excluded studies if infants received partial parenteral nutrition during the study period, or if infants were fed formula as a supplement to human milk.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified six eligible trials that enrolled 218 infants through searches updated to August 2, 2019. Five studies compared low (< 3 g/kg/d) versus high (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) protein intake using formulas that kept other nutrients constant. The trials were small (n = 139), and almost all had methodological limitations; the most frequent uncertainty was about attrition. Low-certainty evidence suggests improved weight gain (mean difference [MD] 2.36 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31 to 3.40) and higher nitrogen accretion in infants receiving formula with higher protein content (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) versus lower protein content (< 3 g/kg/d), while other nutrients were kept constant. No significant differences were seen in rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, or diarrhea. We are uncertain whether high versus low protein intake affects head growth (MD 0.37 cm/week, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58; n = 18) and length gain (MD 0.16 cm/week, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.34; n = 48), but sample sizes were small for these comparisons.\nOne study compared high (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) versus very high (≥ 4 g/kg/d) protein intake (average intakes were 3.6 and 4.1 g/kg/d) during and after an initial hospital stay (n = 77). Moderate-certainty evidence shows no significant differences in weight gain or length gain to discharge, term, and 12 weeks corrected age from very high protein intake (4.1 versus 3.6 g/kg/d). Three of the 24 infants receiving very high protein intake developed uremia.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigher protein intake (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d) from formula accelerates weight gain. However, limited information is available regarding the impact of higher formula protein intake on long-term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Research is needed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of protein intake ≥ 4.0 g/kg/d.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The review was limited in the conclusions made because differences in protein content among comparison groups in some individual trials were small and formulas differed substantially across studies; some studies included healthier and more mature preterm infants. Information on long-term outcomes is limited."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23516
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFoot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.\nObjectives\nTo summarize data from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trial evidence on the effectiveness of dressings for healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus (DM).\nMethods\nWe searched the following databases for relevant systematic reviews and associated analyses: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 14 April 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 14 April 2015). We also handsearched the Cochrane Wounds Group list of reviews. Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Complete wound healing was the primary outcome assessed; secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, adverse events, resource use and dressing performance.\nMain results\nWe found 13 eligible systematic reviews relevant to this overview that contained a total of 17 relevant RCTs. One review reported the results of a network meta-analysis and so presented information on indirect, as well as direct, treatment effects. Collectively the reviews reported findings for 11 different comparisons supported by direct data and 26 comparisons supported by indirect data only. Only four comparisons informed by direct data found evidence of a difference in wound healing between dressing types, but the evidence was assessed as being of low or very low quality (in one case data could not be located and checked). There was also no robust evidence of a difference between dressing types for any secondary outcomes assessed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no robust evidence for differences between wound dressings for any outcome in foot ulcers in people with diabetes (treated in any setting). Practitioners may want to consider the unit cost of dressings, their management properties and patient preference when choosing dressings.\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 the type of wound dressing used for foot ulcers in people with diabetes affects healing?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23517
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPrimary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT), a disorder in which the parathyroid glands produce excessive amounts of parathyroid hormone, is most common in older adults and postmenopausal women. While most people with PHPT are asymptomatic at diagnosis, symptomatic disease can lead to hypercalcaemia, osteoporosis, renal stones, cardiovascular abnormalities and reduced quality of life. Surgical removal of abnormal parathyroid tissue (parathyroidectomy) is the only established treatment for adults with symptomatic PHPT to prevent exacerbation of symptoms and to be cured of PHPT. However, the benefits and risks of parathyroidectomy compared to simple observation or medical therapy for asymptomatic and mild PHPT are not well established.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of parathyroidectomy in adults with PHPT compared to simple observation or medical therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP from their date of inception until 26 November 2021. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing parathyroidectomy with simple observation or medical therapy for the treatment of adults with PHPT.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. cure of PHPT, 2. morbidity related to PHPT and 3. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life and 3. hospitalisation for hypercalcaemia, acute renal impairment or pancreatitis. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified eight eligible RCTs that included 447 adults with (mostly asymptomatic) PHPT; 223 participants were randomised to parathyroidectomy. Follow-up duration varied from six months to 24 months.\nOf the 223 participants (37 men) randomised to surgery, 164 were included in the analyses, of whom 163 were cured at six to 24 months (overall cure rate 99%). Parathyroidectomy compared to observation probably results in a large increase in cure rate at six to 24 months follow-up: 163/164 participants (99.4%) in the parathyroidectomy group and 0/169 participants in the observation or medical therapy group were cured of their PHPT (8 studies, 333 participants; moderate certainty).\nNo studies explicitly reported intervention effects on morbidities related to PHPT, such as osteoporosis, osteopenia, kidney dysfunction, urolithiasis, cognitive dysfunction or cardiovascular disease, although some studies reported surrogate outcomes for osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. A post-hoc analysis revealed that parathyroidectomy, compared to observation or medical therapy, may have little or no effect after one to two years on bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 0.03 g/cm2,95% CI −0.05 to 0.12; 5 studies, 287 participants; very low certainty). Similarly, compared to observation, parathyroidectomy may have little or no effect on femoral neck BMD after one to two years (MD −0.01 g/cm2, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.11; 3 studies, 216 participants; very low certainty). However, the evidence is very uncertain for both BMD outcomes. Furthermore, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of parathyroidectomy on improving left ventricular ejection fraction (MD −2.38%, 95% CI −4.77 to 0.01; 3 studies, 121 participants; very low certainty).\nFour studies reported serious adverse events. Three of these reported zero events in both the intervention and control groups; consequently, we were unable to include data from these three studies in the pooled analysis. The evidence suggests that parathyroidectomy compared to observation may have little or no effect on serious adverse events (RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 78.60; 4 studies, 168 participants; low certainty).\nOnly two studies reported all-cause mortality. One study could not be included in the pooled analysis as zero events were observed in both the intervention and control groups. Parathyroidectomy compared to observation may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.20 to 22.60; 2 studies, 133 participants; very low certainty).\nThree studies measured health-related quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and reported inconsistent differences in scores for different domains of the questionnaire between parathyroidectomy and observation.\nSix studies reported hospitalisations for the correction of hypercalcaemia. Two studies reported zero events in both the intervention and control groups and could not be included in the pooled analysis. Parathyroidectomy, compared to observation, may have little or no effect on hospitalisation for hypercalcaemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.25; 6 studies, 287 participants; low certainty). There were no reported hospitalisations for renal impairment or pancreatitis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn accordance with the literature, our review findings suggest that parathyroidectomy, compared to simple observation or medical (etidronate) therapy, probably results in a large increase in cure rates of PHPT (with normalisation of serum calcium and parathyroid hormone levels to laboratory reference values). Parathyroidectomy, compared with observation, may have little or no effect on serious adverse events or hospitalisation for hypercalcaemia, and the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of parathyroidectomy on other short-term outcomes, such as BMD, all-cause mortality and quality of life. The high uncertainty of evidence limits the applicability of our findings to clinical practice; indeed, this systematic review provides no new insights with regard to treatment decisions for people with (asymptomatic) PHPT. In addition, the methodological limitations of the included studies, and the characteristics of the study populations (mainly comprising white women with asymptomatic PHPT), warrant caution when extrapolating the results to other populations with PHPT.\nLarge-scale multi-national, multi-ethnic and long-term RCTs are needed to explore the potential short- and long-term benefits of parathyroidectomy compared to non-surgical treatment options with regard to osteoporosis or osteopenia, urolithiasis, hospitalisation for acute kidney injury, cardiovascular disease and quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is primary hyperparathyroidism?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is a disorder in which the parathyroid glands (four glands located near or on the thyroid in the neck) become enlarged and produce too much parathyroid hormone. The disease affects 1% of adults. Overproduction of parathyroid hormone disrupts calcium levels in the body, which can lead to various other health issues, such as osteoporosis (a health condition that weakens bones) and bone fractures, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive dysfunction (decline in mental ability), along with a reduced health-related quality of life."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23518
|
[
{
"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 dipeptidyl-peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 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 DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues 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 (WHO) 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 January 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 12 weeks or more comparing DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues 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 and 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 planned to use 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 assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.\nMain results\nWe included seven completed RCTs; about 98 participants were randomised to a DPP-4 inhibitor as monotherapy and 1620 participants were randomised to a GLP-1 analogue as monotherapy. Two trials investigated a DPP-4 inhibitor and five trials investigated a GLP-1 analogue. A total of 924 participants with data on allocation to control groups were randomised to a comparator group; 889 participants were randomised to placebo and 33 participants to metformin monotherapy. One RCT of liraglutide contributed 85% of all participants. The duration of the intervention varied from 12 weeks to 160 weeks. We judged none of the included trials at low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains and did not perform meta-analyses because there were not enough trials.\nOne trial comparing the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin with placebo reported no deaths (very low-quality evidence). The incidence of T2DM by means of WHO diagnostic criteria in this trial was 3/90 participants randomised to vildagliptin versus 1/89 participants randomised to placebo (very low-quality evidence). Also, 1/90 participants on vildagliptin versus 2/89 participants on placebo experienced a serious adverse event (very low-quality evidence). One out of 90 participants experienced congestive heart failure in the vildagliptin group versus none in the placebo group (very low-quality evidence). There were no data on non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects reported.\nAll-cause and cardiovascular mortality following treatment with GLP-1 analogues were rarely reported; one trial of exenatide reported that no participant died. Another trial of liraglutide 3.0 mg showed that 2/1501 in the liraglutide group versus 2/747 in the placebo group died after 160 weeks of treatment (very low-quality evidence).\nThe incidence of T2DM following treatment with liraglutide 3.0 mg compared to placebo after 160 weeks was 26/1472 (1.8%) participants randomised to liraglutide versus 46/738 (6.2%) participants randomised to placebo (very low-quality evidence). The trial established the risk for (diagnosis of) T2DM as HbA1c 5.7% to 6.4% (6.5% or greater), fasting plasma glucose 5.6 mmol/L or greater to 6.9 mmol/L or less (7.0 mmol/L or greater) or two-hour post-load plasma glucose 7.8 mmol/L or greater to 11.0 mmol/L (11.1 mmol/L). Altogether, 70/1472 (66%) participants regressed from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia compared with 268/738 (36%) participants in the placebo group. The incidence of T2DM after the 12-week off-treatment extension period (i.e. after 172 weeks) showed that five additional participants were diagnosed T2DM in the liraglutide group, compared with one participant in the placebo group. After 12-week treatment cessation, 740/1472 (50%) participants in the liraglutide group compared with 263/738 (36%) participants in the placebo group had normoglycaemia.\nOne trial used exenatide and 2/17 participants randomised to exenatide versus 1/16 participants randomised to placebo developed T2DM (very low-quality evidence). This trial did not provide a definition of T2DM. One trial reported serious adverse events in 230/1524 (15.1%) participants in the liraglutide 3.0 mg arm versus 96/755 (12.7%) participants in the placebo arm (very low quality evidence). There were no serious adverse events in the trial using exenatide. Non-fatal myocardial infarction was reported in 1/1524 participants in the liraglutide arm and in 0/55 participants in the placebo arm at 172 weeks (very low-quality evidence). One trial reported congestive heart failure in 1/1524 participants in the liraglutide arm and in 1/755 participants in the placebo arm (very low-quality evidence). Participants receiving liraglutide compared with placebo had a small mean improvement in the physical component of the 36-item Short Form scale showing a difference of 0.87 points (95% CI 0.17 to 1.58; P = 0.02; 1 trial; 1791 participants; very low-quality evidence). No trial evaluating GLP-1-analogues reported data on stroke, microvascular complications or socioeconomic effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no firm evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 analogues compared mainly with placebo substantially influence the risk of T2DM and especially 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: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Are the glucose-lowering medicines, DPP-4 inhibitors (e.g. linagliptin or vildagliptin) and GLP-1 analogues (e.g. exenatide or liraglutide) able to prevent or delay the development of type 2 diabetes and its associated complications in people at risk for the development of type 2 diabetes?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23519
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer and long-term survival rates reported for patients after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in the majority of patients. Cryotherapy is performed with the use of an image-guided cryoprobe which delivers liquid nitrogen or argon gas to the tumour tissue. The subsequent process of freezing is associated with formation of ice crystals, which directly damage exposed tissue, including cancer cells.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of cryotherapy compared with no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and six other databases up to June 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of cryotherapy and its comparators for liver metastases, irrespective of the location of the primary tumour.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We extracted information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, and data on the outcomes important for our review, as well as information on the design and methodology of the trials. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias in each study. One review author performed data extraction and a second review author checked entries.\nMain results\nWe found no randomised clinical trials comparing cryotherapy versus no intervention or versus systemic treatments; however, we identified one randomised clinical trial comparing cryotherapy with conventional surgery. The trial was conducted in Ukraine. The trial included 123 participants with solitary, or multiple unilobar or bilobar liver metastases; 63 participants received cryotherapy and 60 received conventional surgery. There were 36 women and 87 men. The primary sites for the metastases were colon and rectum (66.6%), stomach (7.3%), breast (6.5%), skin (4.9%), ovaries (4.1%), uterus (3.3%), kidney (3.3%), intestines (1.6%), pancreas (1.6%), and unknown (0.8%). The trial was not reported sufficiently enough to assess the risk of bias of the randomisation process, allocation concealment, or presence of blinding. It was also not possible to assess incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting bias. The certainty of evidence was low because of risk of bias and imprecision.\nThe participants were followed for up to 10 years (minimum five months). The trial reported that the mortality at 10 years was 81% (51/63) in the cryotherapy group and 92% (55/60) in the conventional surgery group. The calculated by us relative risk (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.02. We judged the evidence as low-certainty evidence. Regarding adverse events and complications, separately and in total, our calculation showed no evidence of a difference in recurrence of the malignancy in the liver: 86% (54/63) of the participants in the cryotherapy group and 95% (57/60) of the participants in the conventional surgery group developed a new malignancy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence). The frequency of reported complications was similar between the cryotherapy group and the conventional surgery group, except for postoperative pain. Both insignificant and pronounced pain were reported to be more common in the cryotherapy group while intense pain was reported to be more common in the conventional surgery group. However, the authors did not report whether there was any evidence of a difference. There were no intervention-related mortality or bile leakages.\nWe identified no evidence for health-related quality of life, cancer mortality, or time to progression of liver metastases. The study reported tumour response in terms of the carcinoembryonic antigen level in 69% of participants, and reported results in the form of a graph for 30% of participants. The carcinoembryonic antigen level was lower in the cryotherapy group, and decreased to normal values faster in comparison with the control group (P < 0.05).\nFunding: the trial did not provide information on funding.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for the effectiveness of cryotherapy versus conventional surgery in people with liver metastases is of low certainty. We are uncertain about our estimate and cannot determine whether cryotherapy compared with conventional surgery is beneficial or harmful. We found no evidence for the benefits or harms of cryotherapy compared with no intervention, or versus systemic treatments.\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 trial was at high risk of bias. The participants were followed for up to 10 years (minimum five months). The trial reported that the mortality at 10 years was 81% (51/63) in the cryotherapy group and 92% (55/60) in the conventional surgery group. We judged the evidence as low-certainty evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in proportion of participants with recurrence of the malignancy in the liver: 86% (54/63) of the participants in the cryotherapy group and 95% (57/60) of the participants in the conventional surgery group developed a new malignancy (low-certainty evidence). The frequency of reported complications was similar between the cryotherapy group and the conventional surgery group, except for postoperative pain. Both insignificant and pronounced pain were reported to be more common in the cryotherapy group while intense pain was reported to be more common in the conventional surgery group. However, it was not reported whether there was any evidence of a difference. The frequency of unwanted effects (adverse events or complications) was mostly similar in both groups, but pain intensity and frequency seemed to differ between the groups. There were no intervention-related mortality or bile leakages. The trial did not provide data on quality of life; cancer mortality, and time to progression of liver metastases."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23520
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nScrub typhus, an important cause of acute fever in Asia, is caused by Orientia tsutsugamushi, an obligate intracellular bacterium. Antibiotics currently used to treat scrub typhus include tetracyclines, chloramphenicol, macrolides, and rifampicin.\nObjectives\nTo assess and compare the effects of different antibiotic regimens for treatment of scrub typhus.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 8 January 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library (2018, Issue 1); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT). We checked references and contacted study authors for additional data. We applied no language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotic regimens in people with the diagnosis of scrub typhus based on clinical symptoms and compatible laboratory tests (excluding the Weil-Felix test).\nData collection and analysis\nFor this update, two review authors re-extracted all data and assessed the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes when appropriate, and elsewhere tabulated data to facilitate narrative analysis.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs and one quasi-RCT with 548 participants; they took place in the Asia-Pacific region: Korea (three trials), Malaysia (one trial), and Thailand (three trials). Only one trial included children younger than 15 years (N = 57). We judged five trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias owing to inadequate blinding. Trials were heterogenous in terms of dosing of interventions and outcome measures. Across trials, treatment failure rates were low.\nTwo trials compared doxycycline to tetracycline. For treatment failure, the difference between doxycycline and tetracycline is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to tetracycline may make little or no difference in resolution of fever within 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.44, 55 participants; one trial; low-certainty evidence) and in time to defervescence (116 participants; one trial; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to extract data for other outcomes.\nThree trials compared doxycycline versus macrolides. For most outcomes, including treatment failure, resolution of fever within 48 hours, time to defervescence, and serious adverse events, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and macrolides (very low-certainty evidence). Macrolides compared to doxycycline may make little or no difference in the proportion of patients with resolution of fever within five days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.10; 185 participants; two trials; low-certainty evidence). Another trial compared azithromycin versus doxycycline or chloramphenicol in children, but we were not able to disaggregate date for the doxycycline/chloramphenicol group.\nOne trial compared doxycycline versus rifampicin. For all outcomes, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and rifampicin (very low-certainty evidence). Of note, this trial deviated from the protocol after three out of eight patients who had received doxycycline and rifampicin combination therapy experienced treatment failure.\nAcross trials, mild gastrointestinal side effects appeared to be more common with doxycycline than with comparator drugs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTetracycline, doxycycline, azithromycin, and rifampicin are effective treatment options for scrub typhus and have resulted in few treatment failures. Chloramphenicol also remains a treatment option, but we could not include this among direct comparisons in this review.\nMost available evidence is of low or very low certainty. For specific outcomes, some low-certainty evidence suggests there may be little or no difference between tetracycline, doxycycline, and azithromycin as treatment options. Given very low-certainty evidence for rifampicin and the risk of inducing resistance in undiagnosed tuberculosis, clinicians should not regard this as a first-line treatment option. Clinicians could consider rifampicin as a second-line treatment option after exclusion of active tuberculosis.\nFurther research should consist of additional adequately powered trials of doxycycline versus azithromycin or other macrolides, trials of other candidate antibiotics including rifampicin, and trials of treatments for severe scrub typhus. Researchers should standardize diagnostic techniques and reporting of clinical outcomes to allow robust comparisons.\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": "Tetracycline, doxycycline, azithromycin, and rifampicin are effective antibiotics for scrub typhus treatment that have led to few treatment failures. For specific outcomes, some low-certainty evidence suggests there may be little or no difference between tetracycline, doxycycline, and azithromycin. Healthcare workers should not use rifampicin as a first-line treatment. Researchers should standardize the way they diagnose and assess scrub typhus."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23522
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second updated version of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2010 and first updated in Issue 5, 2013.\nPeople with a primary brain tumour often experience depression, for which drug treatment may be prescribed. However, they are also at high risk of epileptic seizures, cognitive impairment, and fatigue, all of which are potential adverse side effects of antidepressants. The benefit, or harm, of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour is unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour.\nSearch methods\nWe updated the search to include CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to September 2019. As in the original review, we also handsearched Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, and Journal of Clinical Oncology: for the current update we handsearched the latest three years of articles from these journals (up to November 2019).\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of any pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a histologically diagnosed primary brain tumour.\nData collection and analysis\nNo studies met the inclusion criteria.\nMain results\nWe found no eligible studies evaluating the benefits of any pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified no high-quality studies that investigated the value of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour. RCTs and detailed prospective studies are required to inform the effective pharmacological treatment of this common and important complication of brain tumours. Since the last version of this review none of the related new literature has provided additional information to change these conclusions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the conclusions?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We conclude that it is important to research whether drugs can treat depression safely and effectively in people with primary brain tumours."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23523
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStandard care of adjuvant treatment for anaplastic oligodendrogliomas (AO) and anaplastic oligoastrocytomas (AOA) is not yet well defined. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT), given as single modalities or sequentially, is still unclear. Furthermore, insight into the predictive and prognostic impact of various biomarkers is surging.\nObjectives\nTo compare postoperative sequential RT and chemotherapy to RT alone in adults with newly diagnosed AO or mixed AOA. To evaluate the predictive and prognostic impact of the following biomarkers: codeletion of chromosomes 1p and 19q, O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promotor methylation and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-1 and -2 mutations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (2006 to March week 2, 2014) and EMBASE (2006 to week 11, 2014). We scanned reference lists from relevant studies for any additional articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with AO, AOA or anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) comparing adjuvant treatment of chemotherapy, RT, or sequential chemotherapy and RT. We excluded no specific chemotherapy regimens.\nData collection and analysis\nWe critically appraised and extracted data from relevant studies. Based on the differences in participant selection with respect to the definition of AO (two versus three high-risk anaplastic features), the inclusion of AA and sequence of treatment (RT and chemotherapy), we could not consider the results from the three RCTs for meta-analysis.\nMain results\nThree RCTs, with 931 participants, tested different neoadjuvant treatments: RT alone; sequential RT and procarbazine, lomustine and vincristine (PCV) chemotherapy; PCV chemotherapy alone; and temozolomide chemotherapy alone. None of the studies blinded participants or personnel, and, therefore, are considered at high risk of performance and detection bias. The studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. One study, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial, demonstrated a statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit for RT plus PCV, with a median OS of 3.5 years compared with 2.6 years in the RT alone arm (P value = 0.018). This result was reported 10 years after the conclusion of the enrolment, and was not apparent in the original 2008 Cochrane review. Furthermore, with retrospective evaluation of biomarkers, codeletion of complete chromosome arms 1p and 19q and IDH-1 or -2 mutation were independent prognostic factors for OS in two of the RCTs (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and EORTC), and were predictive for OS in one trial (RTOG). The third trial (NOA-04) evaluated these biomarkers prospectively and found them prognostic for progression-free survival.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEarly PCV, either before or after RT, appears to improve OS of participants with AO or AOA. Use of biomarkers including codeletion of chromosomes 1p and 19q with or without IDH-1 or -2 mutation identify a subset of people with increased sensitivity to combined PCV and RT. The important role of biomarkers was supported in all of the RCTs examined, and prospective evaluation should be undertaken in future studies. However, PCV was associated with significant grade 3 and 4 toxicities, and whether temozolomide can be substituted for this remains unclear.\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": "Three randomized controlled trials, which included 931 participants, assessed the role of chemotherapy alone or in addition to radiotherapy, or radiotherapy alone. One study was able to demonstrate a significant survival benefit for the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy after surgery, compared with radiotherapy alone. In addition, during examination of these brain tumour biopsy specimens, they found specific chromosome deletions and mutations in two studies, which helped to identify a group of participants with better survival outcomes. Furthermore, in one study, these specific chromosome deletions and mutations predicted which group of participants derived benefit from the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy after surgery."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23524
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with haematological disorders are frequently at risk of severe or life-threatening bleeding as a result of thrombocytopenia (reduced platelet count). This is despite the routine use of prophylactic platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding once the platelet count falls below a certain threshold. Platelet transfusions are not without risk and adverse events may be life-threatening. A possible adjunct to prophylactic platelet transfusions is the use of antifibrinolytics, specifically the lysine analogues tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of antifibrinolytics (lysine analogues) in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 07 March 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs involving participants with haematological disorders, who would routinely require prophylactic platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding. We only included trials involving the use of the lysine analogues TXA and EACA.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all electronically-derived citations and abstracts of papers, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two review authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant trials for eligibility, completed the data extraction and assessed the studies for risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. We requested missing data from one author but the data were no longer available. The outcomes are reported narratively: we performed no meta-analyses because of the heterogeneity of the available data.\nMain results\nWe identified three new studies in this update of the review. In total seven studies were eligible for inclusion, three were ongoing RCTs and four were completed studies. The four completed studies were included in the original review and the three ongoing studies were included in this update. We did not identify any RCTs that compared TXA with EACA.\nOf the four completed studies, one cross-over TXA study (eight participants) was excluded from the outcome analysis because it had very flawed study methodology. Data from the other three studies were all at unclear risk of bias due to lack of reporting of study methodology.\nThree studies (two TXA (12 to 56 participants), one EACA (18 participants) reported in four articles (published 1983 to 1995) were included in the narrative review. All three studies compared the drug with placebo. All three studies included adults with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy. One study (12 participants) only included participants with acute promyelocytic leukaemia. None of the studies included children. One of the three studies reported funding sources and this study was funded by a charity.\nWe are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics reduce the risk of bleeding (three studies; 86 participants; very low-quality evidence). Only one study reported the number of bleeding events per participant and there was no difference in the number of bleeding events seen during induction or consolidation chemotherapy between TXA and placebo (induction; 38 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.70 bleeding events, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 3.77: consolidation; 18 participants; MD -1.50 bleeding events, 95% CI -3.25 to 0.25; very low-quality evidence). The two other studies suggested bleeding was reduced in the antifibrinolytic study arm, but this was statistically significant in only one of these two studies.\nTwo studies reported thromboembolism and no events occurred (68 participants, very low-quality evidence).\nAll three studies reported a reduction in platelet transfusion usage (three studies, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence), but this was reported in different ways and no meta-analysis could be performed. No trials reported the number of platelet transfusions per participant. Only one study reported the number of platelet components per participant and there was a reduction in the number of platelet components per participant during consolidation chemotherapy but not during induction chemotherapy (consolidation; 18 participants; MD -5.60 platelet units, 95% CI -9.02 to -2.18: induction; 38 participants, MD -1.00 platelet units, 95% CI -9.11 to 7.11; very low-quality evidence).\nOnly one study reported adverse events of TXA as an outcome measure and none occurred. One study stated side effects of EACA were minimal but no further information was provided (two studies, 74 participants, very low-quality evidence).\nNone of the studies reported on the following pre-specified outcomes: overall mortality, adverse events of transfusion, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) or quality of life (QoL).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur results indicate that the evidence available for the use of antifibrinolytics in haematology patients is very limited. The trials were too small to assess whether or not antifibrinolytics decrease bleeding. No trials reported the number of platelet transfusions per participant. The trials were too small to assess whether or not antifibrinolytics increased the risk of thromboembolic events or other adverse events. There are three ongoing RCTs (1276 participants) due to be completed in 2017 and 2020.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "People with haematological (blood) cancers and other blood disorders (for example, aplastic anaemia) are frequently at risk of severe or life-threatening bleeding from having low platelet counts (thrombocytopenia). This may be from bone marrow failure due to an underlying blood disorder but also from the toxic effect of treatment (chemotherapy) on the bone marrow. These people can be given prophylactic platelet transfusions (from donations) to prevent bleeding if their own platelet counts are too low. These transfusions are not without risks, ranging from mild reactions like fevers to more serious, or even life-threatening, consequences such as infections transmitted to the patient from the transfused platelets, despite stringent attempts to prevent this.\nClearly, ways to safely prevent bleeding in people with thrombocytopenia whilst also minimising exposure to transfused platelets would be welcome. One possible way of achieving these goals is the use of antifibrinolytics, known as lysine analogues: tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA). These medications help to stabilise the clots that form after bleeding, therefore reducing the chances of further bleeding as well as the need for transfusing platelets. There may be risks associated with the use of TXA and EACA; the most important being an increased risk of forming unwanted blood clots (such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT), which could be potentially life-threatening."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23525
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOne person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.\nInternational healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.\nThis review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.\nWe updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nThis updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.\nPrimary outcomes\nWe are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence.\nFor readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences.\nRegarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes.\nSecondary outcomes\nWe are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence.\nWe are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically.\nWe are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence.\nRegarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence.\nThere were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.\nOverall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.\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": "Shared decision-making is an approach to consumer-professional communication where both parties (e.g. patients or their carers, or both, together with their clinician) are acknowledged to bring equally important experience and expertise to the process. In this approach, both parties work in partnership to make treatment recommendations and decisions.\nThis approach is considered part of a broader recovery and person-centred movement within the behavioural health field. The focus on recovery and individual responsibility for understanding and managing symptoms in collaboration with professionals, caregivers, peers, and family members is also fundamental to this approach.\nSometimes it also involves a 'decision aid', such as videos, booklets, or online tools, presenting information about treatments, benefits and risks of different options, and identifying ways to make the decision that reflects what is most important to the person. The process of shared decision-making may often also involve decision coaching by someone who is non-directive and provides decision support that aims to prepare people for discussion and the decision in the encounter with their practitioner.\nWe wanted to find out if shared decision-making interventions were better than care as usual for people with mental health conditions to improve:\n• clinical outcomes, such as psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission;\n• participation or level of involvement in the decision-making process.\nWe also wanted to find out if shared decision-making interventions were associated with any unwanted (harmful) effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23526
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOverweight and obesity are increasing worldwide and are considered to be a major public health issue of the 21st century. Introducing taxation of the fat content in foods is considered a potentially powerful policy tool to reduce consumption of foods high in fat or saturated fat, or both.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of taxation of the fat content in food on consumption of total fat and saturated fat, energy intake, overweight, obesity, and other adverse health outcomes in the general population.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, and 15 other databases and trial registers on 12 September 2019. We handsearched the reference lists of all records of included studies, searched websites of international organizations and institutions (14 October 2019), and contacted review advisory group members to identify planned, ongoing, or unpublished studies (26 February 2020).\nSelection criteria\nIn line with Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria, we included the following study types: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series studies. We included studies that evaluated the effects of taxes on the fat content in foods. Such a tax could be expressed as sales, excise, or special value added tax (VAT) on the final product or an intermediary product. Eligible interventions were taxation at any level, with no restriction on the duration or the implementation level (i.e. local, regional, national, or multinational). Eligible study populations were children (zero to 17 years) and adults (18 years or older) from any country and setting. We excluded studies that focused on specific subgroups only (e.g. people receiving pharmaceutical intervention; people undergoing a surgical intervention; ill people who are overweight or obese as a side effect, such as those with thyroiditis and depression; and people with chronic illness). Primary outcomes were total fat consumption, consumption of saturated fat, energy intake through fat, energy intake through saturated fat, total energy intake, and incidence/prevalence of overweight or obesity. We did not exclude studies based on country, setting, comparison, or population.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods for all phases of the review. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the criteria of Cochrane’s ‘Risk of bias’ tool and the EPOC Group’s guidance. Results of the review are summarized narratively and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. These steps were done by two review authors, independently.\nMain results\nWe identified 23,281 records from searching electronic databases and 1173 records from other sources, leading to a total of 24,454 records. Two studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Both included studies investigated the effect the Danish tax on saturated fat contained in selected food items between 2011 and 2012. Both studies used an interrupted time series design. Neither included study had a parallel control group from another geographic area. The included studies investigated an unbalanced panel of approximately 2000 households in Denmark and the sales data from a specific Danish supermarket chain (1293 stores). Therefore, the included studies did not address individual participants, and no restriction regarding age, sex, and socioeconomic characteristics were defined. We judged the overall risk of bias of the two included studies as unclear.\nFor the outcome total consumption of fat, a reduction of 41.8 grams per week per person in a household (P < 0.001) was estimated. For the consumption of saturated fat, one study reported a reduction of 4.2% from minced beef sales, a reduction of 5.8% from cream sales, and an increase of 0.5% to sour cream sales (no measures of statistical precision were reported for these estimates). These estimates are based on a restricted number of food types and derived from sales data; they do not measure individual intake. Moreover, these estimates do not account for other relevant sources of fat intake (e.g. packaged or processed food) or other food outlets (e.g. restaurants or cafeterias); hence, we judged the evidence on the effect of taxation on total fat consumption or saturated fat consumption to be very uncertain. We did not identify evidence on the effect of the intervention on energy intake or the incidence or prevalence of overweight or obesity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the very low quality of the evidence currently available, we are unable to reliably establish whether a tax on total fat or saturated fat is effective or ineffective in reducing consumption of total fat or saturated fat. There is currently no evidence on the effect of a tax on total fat or saturated fat on total energy intake or energy intake through saturated fat or total fat, or preventing the incidence or reducing the prevalence of overweight or obesity.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are fats?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Fat is essential to a healthy, balanced diet. Fats help the body to absorb some vitamins, and are a source of some fatty acids that the body cannot make. The main types of fat in foods are:\n- saturated (mostly from animal products, such as meat, cow's milk, cheese, cream, and butter); and\n- unsaturated (mostly found in oils from plants and fish).\nHealth guidelines usually recommend that people should:\n- reduce the overall amount of fat they eat;\n- limit the amount of saturated fats they eat; and\n- eat unsaturated fats instead of saturated fats."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23527
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19.\nObjectives\nTo determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19.\nTo determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality.\nA secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health, and Scopus from inception on March 2023, and monitored the literature monthly. We updated the search strategies with new terms and added the database Global Index Medicus in lieu of LILACS.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI).\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication.\nMain results\nWe included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies.\nBased on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nTwo NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives.\nOne comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty.\nThe odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. We noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users.\nWe specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included studies published up to March 2022. We looked for studies that reported on risk of developing blood clots, being hospitalized, needing high levels of care like requiring a breathing tube, or risk of dying from COVID-19 for people who used birth control, especially birth control with estrogen like combined pills, compared to people who did not use birth control. Because there were very few studies, we also looked at studies that reported on a group of individuals with COVID-19 using birth control who developed clots who were not compared to another group. We included five studies in total. One study of 18,892 people looked at the risk of dying for people with COVID-19 using combined birth control methods. Another study of 295,689 people looked at the risk of being hospitalized for people using combined birth control methods who were tracking their COVID symptoms on a smartphone application, but not specifically tested for COVID-19. A third study of only 123 people looked at the risk of being hospitalized for people with COVID-19 who were using any type of hormonal birth control. Finally, two studies of 13 people total with COVID-19 who had developed blood clots looked at the number of those people who had used combined birth control."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23528
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNon-alcohol related fatty liver disease (commonly called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)) is liver steatosis in the absence of significant alcohol consumption, use of hepatotoxic medication, or other disorders affecting the liver such as hepatitis C virus infection, Wilson's disease, and starvation. NAFLD embraces the full spectrum of disease from pure steatosis (i.e. uncomplicated fatty liver) to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), via NASH-cirrhosis to cirrhosis. The optimal pharmacological treatment for people with NAFLD remains uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of NAFLD through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.com to August 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with NAFLD. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on an available participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 77 trials including 6287 participants that met the inclusion criteria of this review. Forty-one trials (3829 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. Only one trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. All other trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, all the evidence was very low quality. Thirty-five trials included only participants with non-alcohol related steatohepatitis (NASH) (based on biopsy confirmation). Five trials included only participants with diabetes mellitus; 14 trials included only participants without diabetes mellitus. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one month to 24 months.\nWe present here only the comparisons of active intervention versus no intervention in which two or more trials reported at least one of the following outcomes: mortality at maximal follow-up, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life, the outcomes that determine whether a treatment should be used.\nAntioxidants versus no intervention\nThere was no mortality in either group (87 participants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence). None of the participants developed serious adverse events in the trial which reported the proportion of people with serious adverse events (87 participants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of difference in the number of serious adverse events between antioxidants and no intervention (rate ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.19; 254 participants; 2 trials; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life.\nBile acids versus no intervention\nThere was no evidence of difference in mortality at maximal follow-up (OR 5.11, 95% CI 0.24 to 107.34; 659 participants; 4 trials; very low quality evidence), proportion of people with serious adverse events (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.88; 404 participants; 3 trials; very low quality evidence), or the number of serious adverse events (rate ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.54; 404 participants; 3 trials; very low quality evidence) between bile acids and no intervention. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life.\nThiazolidinediones versus no intervention\nThere was no mortality in either group (74 participants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence). None of the participants developed serious adverse events in the two trials which reported the proportion of people with serious adverse events (194 participants; 2 trials; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of difference in the number of serious adverse events between thiazolidinediones and no intervention (rate ratio 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.05; 357 participants; 3 trials; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life.\nSource of funding\nTwenty-six trials were partially- or fully-funded by pharmaceutical companies that would benefit, based on the results of the trial. Twelve trials did not receive any additional funding or were funded by parties with no vested interest in the results. The source of funding was not provided in 39 trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the very low quality evidence, we are very uncertain about the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for people with NAFLD including those with steatohepatitis. Further well-designed randomised clinical trials with sufficiently large sample sizes are necessary.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Bile acids versus no intervention\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There was no evidence of difference in deaths at maximal follow-up (659 participants, 4 trials), percentage of people with serious adverse events (404 participants, 3 trials), or the number of serious adverse events (404 participants, 3 trials) between bile acids and no intervention. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23529
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExcessive alcohol use contributes significantly to physical and psychological illness, injury and death, and a wide array of social harm in all age groups. A proven strategy for reducing excessive alcohol consumption levels is to offer a brief conversation-based intervention in primary care settings, but more recent technological innovations have enabled people to interact directly via computer, mobile device or smartphone with digital interventions designed to address problem alcohol consumption.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, or both, in people living in the community, specifically: (i) Are digital interventions more effective and cost-effective than no intervention (or minimal input) controls? (ii) Are digital interventions at least equally effective as face-to-face brief alcohol interventions? (iii) What are the effective component behaviour change techniques (BCTs) of such interventions and their mechanisms of action? (iv) What theories or models have been used in the development and/or evaluation of the intervention? Secondary objectives were (i) to assess whether outcomes differ between trials where the digital intervention targets participants attending health, social care, education or other community-based settings and those where it is offered remotely via the internet or mobile phone platforms; (ii) to specify interventions according to their mode of delivery (e.g. functionality features) and assess the impact of mode of delivery on outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, HTA and Web of Knowledge databases; ClinicalTrials.com and WHO ICTRP trials registers and relevant websites to April 2017. We also checked the reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of digital interventions compared with no intervention or with face-to-face interventions for reducing hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people living in the community and reported a measure of alcohol consumption.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included 57 studies which randomised a total of 34,390 participants. The main sources of bias were from attrition and participant blinding (36% and 21% of studies respectively, high risk of bias). Forty one studies (42 comparisons, 19,241 participants) provided data for the primary meta-analysis, which demonstrated that participants using a digital intervention drank approximately 23 g alcohol weekly (95% CI 15 to 30) (about 3 UK units) less than participants who received no or minimal interventions at end of follow up (moderate-quality evidence).\nFifteen studies (16 comparisons, 10,862 participants) demonstrated that participants who engaged with digital interventions had less than one drinking day per month fewer than no intervention controls (moderate-quality evidence), 15 studies (3587 participants) showed about one binge drinking session less per month in the intervention group compared to no intervention controls (moderate-quality evidence), and in 15 studies (9791 participants) intervention participants drank one unit per occasion less than no intervention control participants (moderate-quality evidence).\nOnly five small studies (390 participants) compared digital and face-to-face interventions. There was no difference in alcohol consumption at end of follow up (MD 0.52 g/week, 95% CI -24.59 to 25.63; low-quality evidence). Thus, digital alcohol interventions produced broadly similar outcomes in these studies. No studies reported whether any adverse effects resulted from the interventions.\nA median of nine BCTs were used in experimental arms (range = 1 to 22). 'B' is an estimate of effect (MD in quantity of drinking, expressed in g/week) per unit increase in the BCT, and is a way to report whether individual BCTs are linked to the effect of the intervention. The BCTs of goal setting (B -43.94, 95% CI -78.59 to -9.30), problem solving (B -48.03, 95% CI -77.79 to -18.27), information about antecedents (B -74.20, 95% CI -117.72 to -30.68), behaviour substitution (B -123.71, 95% CI -184.63 to -62.80) and credible source (B -39.89, 95% CI -72.66 to -7.11) were significantly associated with reduced alcohol consumption in unadjusted models. In a multivariable model that included BCTs with B > 23 in the unadjusted model, the BCTs of behaviour substitution (B -95.12, 95% CI -162.90 to -27.34), problem solving (B -45.92, 95% CI -90.97 to -0.87), and credible source (B -32.09, 95% CI -60.64 to -3.55) were associated with reduced alcohol consumption.\nThe most frequently mentioned theories or models in the included studies were Motivational Interviewing Theory (7/20), Transtheoretical Model (6/20) and Social Norms Theory (6/20). Over half of the interventions (n = 21, 51%) made no mention of theory. Only two studies used theory to select participants or tailor the intervention. There was no evidence of an association between reporting theory use and intervention effectiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that digital interventions may lower alcohol consumption, with an average reduction of up to three (UK) standard drinks per week compared to control participants. Substantial heterogeneity and risk of performance and publication bias may mean the reduction was lower. Low-quality evidence from fewer studies suggested there may be little or no difference in impact on alcohol consumption between digital and face-to-face interventions.\nThe BCTs of behaviour substitution, problem solving and credible source were associated with the effectiveness of digital interventions to reduce alcohol consumption and warrant further investigation in an experimental context.\nReporting of theory use was very limited and often unclear when present. Over half of the interventions made no reference to any theories. Limited reporting of theory use was unrelated to heterogeneity in intervention effectiveness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Current to March 2017."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23530
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe genital infection caused by Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) is a common sexually transmitted infection (STI) globally. The infection is mainly asymptomatic in women, thus it can produce infertility and chronic pelvic pain. In men infection is mainly symptomatic, but can evolve to prostatitis. Clinical practice guidelines for CT urogenital infections do not give any specific recommendation about which antibiotic use as first option\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment for CT genital infection in men and non-pregnant women.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections' (STI) Information Specialist developed the electronic searches in electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS), and trials registers. We searched studies published from inception to June 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of men, and sexually-active, non-pregnant women with CT infection (urethritis or uterine cervicitis or asymptomatic), diagnosed by cell culture for CT, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) or antigen-based detection methods, who had been treated with any of the antibiotic regimens recommended by any of the updated to 2013 CT Guidelines.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors screened evidence according to selection criteria and independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Two authors developed the 'Summary of findings' tables. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis model for combining data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect. We estimated the pooled risk ratio in order to establish the effects of the comparisons. Our primary outcomes were microbiological failure and adverse events, and our secondary outcomes were clinical failure, antimicrobial resistance and reinfection.\nMain results\nWe selected 14 studies ( 2715 participants: 2147 (79.08%) men and 568 (20.92%) women). The studies were conducted mainly at STD clinics. Sample sizes ranged from 71 to 606 participants; follow-up was 29.7 days on average.\nFor the comparison: azithromycin single dose versus doxycycline once or twice daily for 7 days, in men treated for CT, the risk of microbiological failure was higher in the azithromycin group (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.41; participants = 821; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence), but regarding clinical failure, the results showed that the effect is uncertain (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2,05; I² = 55%; participants = 525; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). Regarding adverse events (AE) in men there could be little or no difference between the antibiotics (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; participants = 1424; studies = 6; low-quality evidence). About women treated for CT, the effect on microbiological failure was uncertain (RR = 1.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 6.16; participants = 338; studies = 5; very low-quality evidence). There were no studies assessing clinical failure or adverse events in women, however, we found that azithromycin probably has fewer adverse events in both genders (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; I² = 0%; participants = 2261; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence).\nFor the second comparison: doxycycline compared to ofloxacin, for men treated for CT the effect on microbiological failure was uncertain (RR 8.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 167.38, I² not applicable; participants = 80; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence), as also it was on clinical failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.62; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). The effect of in women on clinical failure was uncertain (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.25; I² = 39%; participants = 127; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).Regarding adverse events, the effect in both men and women was uncertain (RR 1.02 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; participants = 339 studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). The effect on microbiological failure in women and in men and women together was not estimable. The most frequently AE reported were not serious and of gastrointestinal origin.No studies assessed antimicrobial resistance or reinfection in either comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn men, regimens with azithromycin are probably less effective than doxycycline for microbiological failure, however, there might be little or no difference for clinical failure. For women, we are uncertain whether azithromycin compared to doxycycline increases the risk of microbiological failure. Azithromycin probably slightly reduces adverse events compared to doxycycline in men and women together but may have little difference in men alone. We are uncertain whether doxycycline compared to ofloxacin reduces microbiological failure in men or women alone, or men and women together, nor if it reduces clinical failure or adverse events in men or women.\nBased on the fact that women suffer mainly asymptomatic infections, and in order to test the effectiveness and safety of the current recommendations (azithromycin, doxycycline and ofloxacin), for CT infection, especially in low and middle income countries, future RCTs should be designed and conducted to include a large enough sample size of women, and with low risk of bias. It is also important that future RCTs include adherence, CT resistance to antibiotic regimens, and risk of reinfection as outcomes to be measured. In addition, it is important to conduct a network meta-analysis in order to evaluate all those studies that included in one arm only the current antibiotic treatments for CT infection that are recommended by the updated clinical practice guidelines.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for studies published up to June 2018 that provided information about failure to eliminate the CT infection or improve the symptoms, presence of adverse events, antimicrobial resistance, and reinfection. as treatment outcomes"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23531
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe proportion of people living with and surviving cancer is growing. This has led to increased awareness of the importance of quality of life, including sexual function, in those affected by cancer. Sexual dysfunction is a potential long-term complication of many cancer treatments. This includes treatments that have a direct impact on the pelvic area and genitals, and also treatments that have a more generalised (systemic) impact on sexual function.\nThis is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2007, on interventions for treating sexual dysfunction following treatments for cancer for men and women. Since publication in 2007, there has been an increase in the number of trials for both men and women and this current review critiques only those for women. A review in press will present those for men.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for treating sexual dysfunction in women following treatments for cancer. To assess adverse events associated with interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Dissertation Abstracts and the NHS Research Register. The searches were originally run in January 2007 and we updated these to September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of a treatment for sexual dysfunction. The trial participants were women who had developed sexual dysfunction as a consequence of a cancer treatment. We sought evaluations of interventions that were pharmaceutical, mechanical, psychotherapeutic, complementary or that involved physical exercise.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. We considered meta-analysis for trials with comparable key characteristics.\nMain results\nSince the original version of this review we have identified 11 new studies in women. The one study identified in the earlier version of this review was excluded in this update as it did not meet our narrower inclusion criteria to include only interventions for the treatment, not prevention, of sexual dysfunction.\nIn total 1509 female participants were randomised across 11 trials. All trials explored interventions following treatment either for gynaecological or breast cancer. Eight trials evaluated a psychotherapeutic or psycho-educational intervention. Two trials evaluated a pharmaceutical intervention and one pelvic floor exercises. All involved heterosexual women. Eight studies were at a high risk of bias as they involved a sample of fewer than 50 participants per trial arm. The trials varied not only in intervention content but in outcome measurements, thereby restricting combined analysis. In the trials evaluating a psychotherapeutic intervention the effect on sexual dysfunction was mixed; in three trials benefit was found for some measures of sexual function and in five trials no benefit was found. Evidence from the other three trials, two on different pharmaceutical applications and one on exercise, differed and was limited by small sample sizes. Only the trial of a pH-balanced vaginal gel found significant improvements in sexual function. The trials of pharmaceutical interventions measured harm: neither reported any. Only one psychological intervention trial reported that no harm occurred because of the intervention; the other trials of psychological support did not measure harm.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince the last version of this review, the new studies do not provide clear information on the impact of interventions for sexual dysfunction following treatments for cancer in women. The sexual dysfunction interventions in this review are not representative of the range that is available for women, or of the wider range of cancers in which treatments are known to increase the risk of sexual problems. Further evaluations are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Across the trials the impact on sexual function was different. This makes it difficult to derive clear conclusions. For instance, in those that evaluated a psychological support treatment, four studies found that it improved some measures of sexual function but not others, but five found that it did not improve sexual function according to any of the measures used. For the other interventions tested, only the trial of the vaginal gel found improvements in sexual function and no side effects were reported. Only one of the psychological interventions reported that no harm occurred because of the intervention. The other trials of psychological support did not assess harm. This is an important gap as some women may find it distressing to discuss personal sexual problems as part of their treatment.\nFurther evaluations are needed for all interventions. Current studies have only explored effectiveness in women with gynaecological and breast cancers, but there is a risk of sexual problems after treatments for other cancers. New evaluations need to involve larger numbers of participants."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23532
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInduction of labour involves stimulating uterine contractions artificially to promote the onset of labour. There are several pharmacological, surgical and mechanical methods used to induce labour. Membrane sweeping is a mechanical technique whereby a clinician inserts one or two fingers into the cervix and using a continuous circular sweeping motion detaches the inferior pole of the membranes from the lower uterine segment. This produces hormones that encourage effacement and dilatation potentially promoting labour. This review is an update to a review first published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of membrane sweeping for induction of labour in women at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation).\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (25 February 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (25 February 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing membrane sweeping used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed on a predefined list of labour induction methods. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, but none were identified.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, or by including a third review author. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 44 studies (20 new to this update), reporting data for 6940 women and their infants. We used random-effects throughout.\nOverall, the risk of bias was assessed as low or unclear risk in most domains across studies. Evidence certainty, assessed using GRADE, was found to be generally low, mainly due to study design, inconsistency and imprecision. Six studies (n = 1284) compared membrane sweeping with more than one intervention and were thus included in more than one comparison.\nNo trials reported on the outcomes uterine hyperstimulation with/without fetal heart rate (FHR) change, uterine rupture or neonatal encephalopathy.\nForty studies (6548 participants) compared membrane sweeping with no treatment/sham\nWomen randomised to membrane sweeping may be more likely to experience:\n· spontaneous onset of labour (average risk ratio (aRR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.34, 17 studies, 3170 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nbut less likely to experience:\n· induction (aRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94, 16 studies, 3224 participants, low-certainty evidence);\nThere may be little to no difference between groups for:\n· caesareans (aRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, 32 studies, 5499 participants, moderate-certainty evidence);\n· spontaneous vaginal birth (aRR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.07, 26 studies, 4538 participants, moderate-certainty evidence);\n· maternal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.20, 17 studies, 2749 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· neonatal perinatal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.17, 18 studies, 3696 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nFour studies reported data for 480 women comparing membrane sweeping with vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins\nThere may be little to no difference between groups for the outcomes:\n· spontaneous onset of labour (aRR, 1.24, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.57, 3 studies, 339 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· induction (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.45, 2 studies, 157 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· caesarean (aRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09, 3 studies, 339 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· spontaneous vaginal birth (aRR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.32, 2 studies, 252 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· maternal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.21, 1 study, 87 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· neonatal perinatal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.33, 2 studies, 269 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nOne study, reported data for 104 women, comparing membrane sweeping with intravenous oxytocin +/- amniotomy\nThere may be little to no difference between groups for:\n· spontaneous onset of labour (aRR 1.32, 95% CI 88 to 1.96, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· induction (aRR 0.51, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.42, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· caesarean (aRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.85, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· maternal death or serious morbidity was reported on, but there were no events.\nTwo studies providing data for 160 women compared membrane sweeping with vaginal/oral misoprostol\nThere may be little to no difference between groups for:\n· caesareans (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.17, 1 study, 96 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nOne study providing data for 355 women which compared once weekly membrane sweep with twice-weekly membrane sweep and a sham procedure\nThere may be little to no difference between groups for:\n· induction (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.85, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty);\n· caesareans (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.46, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17, 1 study, 234 participants, moderate-certainty evidence);\n· maternal death or serious maternal morbidity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.02, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· neonatal death or serious neonatal perinatal morbidity (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.76, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence);\nWe found no studies that compared membrane sweeping with amniotomy only or mechanical methods.\nThree studies, providing data for 675 women, reported that women indicated favourably on their experience of membrane sweeping with one study reporting that 88% (n = 312) of women questioned in the postnatal period would choose membrane sweeping in the next pregnancy.\nTwo studies reporting data for 290 women reported that membrane sweeping is more cost-effective than using prostaglandins, although more research should be undertaken in this area.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMembrane sweeping may be effective in achieving a spontaneous onset of labour, but the evidence for this was of low certainty. When compared to expectant management, it potentially reduces the incidence of formal induction of labour. Questions remain as to whether there is an optimal number of membrane sweeps and timings and gestation of these to facilitate induction of labour.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Compared with no intervention or a sham sweep (40 studies involving 6548 women), allocated to membrane sweeping may be more likely to have spontaneous onset of labour, but we found no clear difference in unassisted vaginal births. Women may also be less likely to have formal induction of labour. We also found no clear differences between the groups for caesarean section, instrumental vaginal births or serious illness or death of the mother or baby.\nCompared with vaginal or intracervical prostaglandins (four studies involving 480 women), we found no difference in any outcomes although data were limited.\nWe found insufficient data to draw any conclusions in the studies comparing membrane sweep with intravenous oxytocin, with or without breaking the waters, or with vaginal/oral misoprostol. Similarly for the comparison between different frequencies of membrane sweeping."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23533
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany people with low back pain (LBP) become frequent users of healthcare services in their attempt to find treatments that minimise the severity of their symptoms. Back School consists of a therapeutic programme given to groups of people that includes both education and exercise. However, the content of Back School has changed over time and appears to vary widely today. This review is an update of a Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of Back School. We split the Cochrane review into two reviews, one focusing on acute and subacute LBP, and one on chronic LBP.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this systematic review was to determine the effect of Back School on pain and disability for adults with chronic non-specific LBP; we included adverse events as a secondary outcome. In trials that solely recruited workers, we also examined the effect on work status.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, two other databases and two trials registers to 15 November 2016. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and consulted experts in the field of LBP management to identify any potentially relevant studies we may have missed. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only RCTs and quasi-RCTs evaluating pain, disability, and/or work status as outcomes. The primary outcomes for this update were pain and disability, and the secondary outcomes were work status and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed the 'Risk of bias' assessment of the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We summarised the results for the short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-ups. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nFor the outcome pain, at short-term follow-up, we found very low-quality evidence that Back School is more effective than no treatment (mean difference (MD) -6.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.18 to -2.01). However, we found very low-quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Back School and no treatment at intermediate-term (MD -4.34, 95% CI –14.37 to 5.68) or long-term follow-up (MD -12.16, 95% CI -29.14 to 4.83). There was very low-quality evidence that Back School reduces pain at short-term follow-up compared to medical care (MD -10.16, 95% CI –19.11 to -1.22). Very low-quality evidence showed there to be no significant difference between Back School and medical care at intermediate-term (MD -9.65, 95% CI -22.46 to 3.15) or long-term follow-up (MD -5.71, 95% CI –20.27 to 8.84). We found very low-quality evidence that Back School is no more effective than passive physiotherapy at short-term (MD 1.96, 95% CI –9.51 to 13.43), intermediate-term (MD -16.89, 95% CI -66.56 to 32.79), or long-term follow-up (MD -12.86, 95% CI –61.22 to 35.50). There was very low-quality evidence that Back School is no better than exercise at short- term follow-up (MD -2.06, 95% CI –14.58 to 10.45). There was low-quality evidence that Back School is no better than exercise at intermediate-term (MD -4.46, 95% CI –19.44 to 10.52) and long-term follow-up (MD 4.58, 95% CI –0.20 to 9.36).\nFor the outcome disability, we found very low-quality evidence that Back School is no more effective than no treatment at intermediate-term (MD –5.92, 95% CI –12.08 to 0.23) and long-term follow-up (MD -7.36, 95% CI -22.05 to 7.34); medical care at short-term (MD –1.19, 95% CI –7.02 to 4.64) and long-term follow-up (MD –0.40, 95% CI –7.33 to 6.53); passive physiotherapy at short-term (MD 2.57, 95% CI –15.88 to 21.01) and intermediate-term follow-up (MD 6.88, 95% CI -4.86 to 18.63); and exercise at short-term (MD -1.65, 95% CI –8.66 to 5.37), intermediate-term (MD 1.57, 95% CI –3.86 to 7.00), and long-term follow-up (MD 4.54, 95% CI -4.44 to 13.52). We found very low-quality evidence of a small difference between Back School and no treatment at short-term follow-up (MD –3.38, 95% CI –6.70 to –0.05) and medical care at intermediate-term follow-up (MD –6.34, 95% CI –10.89 to –1.79). Still, at long-term follow-up there was very low-quality evidence that passive physiotherapy is better than Back School (MD 9.60, 95% CI 3.65 to 15.54).\nFew studies measured adverse effects. The results were reported as means without standard deviations or group size was not reported. Due to this lack of information, we were unable to statistically pool the adverse events data. Work status was not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the low- to very low-quality of the evidence for all treatment comparisons, outcomes, and follow-up periods investigated, it is uncertain if Back School is effective for chronic low back pain. Although the quality of the evidence was mostly very low, the results showed no difference or a trivial effect in favour of Back School. There are myriad potential variants on the Back School approach regarding the employment of different exercises and educational methods. While current evidence does not warrant their use, future variants on Back School may have different effects and will need to be studied in future RCTs and reviews.\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": "Many people with low back pain (LBP) seeking treatments that minimise the severity of their symptoms become frequent users of healthcare services. Back School consists of a therapeutic programme given to groups of people that includes both education and exercise. Since its introduction in 1969, the Swedish Back School has frequently been used in the treatment of LBP. However, the content of Back School has changed over time and appears to vary widely today."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23534
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nObstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is characterised by partial or complete upper airway obstruction during sleep. Approximately 1% to 4% of children are affected by OSA, with adenotonsillar hypertrophy being the most common underlying risk factor. Surgical removal of enlarged adenoids or tonsils is the currently recommended first-line treatment for OSA due to adenotonsillar hypertrophy. Given the perioperative risk and an estimated recurrence rate of up to 20% following surgery, there has recently been an increased interest in less invasive alternatives to adenotonsillectomy. As the enlarged adenoids and tonsils consist of hypertrophied lymphoid tissue, anti-inflammatory drugs have been proposed as a potential non-surgical treatment option in children with OSA.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of OSA in children.\nSearch methods\nWe identified trials from searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL and MEDLINE (1950 to 2019). For identification of ongoing clinical trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-inflammatory drugs against placebo in children between one and 16 years with objectively diagnosed OSA (apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI) ≥ 1 per hour).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently performed screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. We separately pooled results for the comparisons 'intranasal steroids' and 'montelukast' against placebo using random-effects models. The primary outcomes for this review were AHI and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included the respiratory disturbance index, desaturation index, respiratory arousal index, nadir arterial oxygen saturation, mean arterial oxygen saturation, avoidance of surgical treatment for OSA, clinical symptom score, tonsillar size, and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included five trials with a total of 240 children aged one to 18 years with mild to moderate OSA (AHI 1 to 30 per hour). All trials were performed in specialised sleep medicine clinics at tertiary care centres. Follow-up time ranged from six weeks to four months.\nThree RCTs (n = 137) compared intranasal steroids against placebo; two RCTs compared oral montelukast against placebo (n = 103). We excluded one trial from the meta-analysis since the patients were not analysed as randomised. We also had concerns about selective reporting in another trial.\nWe are uncertain about the difference in AHI (MD −3.18, 95% CI −8.70 to 2.35) between children receiving intranasal corticosteroids compared to placebo (2 studies, 75 participants; low-certainty evidence). In contrast, children receiving oral montelukast had a lower AHI (MD −3.41, 95% CI −5.36 to −1.45) compared to those in the placebo group (2 studies, 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether the secondary outcomes are different between children receiving intranasal corticosteroids compared to placebo: desaturation index (MD −2.12, 95% CI −4.27 to 0.04; 2 studies, 75 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), respiratory arousal index (MD −0.71, 95% CI −6.25 to 4.83; 2 studies, 75 participants; low-certainty evidence), and nadir oxygen saturation (MD 0.59%, 95% CI −1.09 to 2.27; 2 studies, 75 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nChildren receiving oral montelukast had a lower respiratory arousal index (MD −2.89, 95% CI −4.68 to −1.10; 2 studies, 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and nadir of oxygen saturation (MD 4.07, 95% CI 2.27 to 5.88; 2 studies, 103 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to those in the placebo group. We are uncertain, however, about the difference in desaturation index (MD −2.50, 95% CI −5.53 to 0.54; 2 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence) between the montelukast and placebo group.\nAdverse events were assessed and reported in all trials and were rare, of minor nature (e.g. nasal bleeding), and evenly distributed between study groups.\nNo study examined the avoidance of surgical treatment for OSA as an outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence for the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of OSA in children; they may have short-term beneficial effects on the desaturation index and oxygen saturation in children with mild to moderate OSA but the certainty of the benefit on the primary outcome AHI, as well as the respiratory arousal index, was low due to imprecision of the estimates and heterogeneity between studies.\nMontelukast has short-term beneficial treatment effects for OSA in otherwise healthy, non-obese, surgically untreated children (moderate certainty for primary outcome and moderate and high certainty, respectively, for two secondary outcomes) by significantly reducing the number of apnoeas, hypopnoeas, and respiratory arousals during sleep. In addition, montelukast was well tolerated in the children studied. The clinical relevance of the observed treatment effects remains unclear, however, because minimal clinically important differences are not yet established for polysomnography-based outcomes in children.\nLong-term efficacy and safety data on the use of anti-inflammatory medications for the treatment of OSA in childhood are still not available. In addition, patient-centred outcomes like concentration ability, vigilance, or school performance have not been investigated yet.\nThere are currently no RCTs on the use of other kinds of anti-inflammatory medications for the treatment of OSA in children.\nFuture RCTs should investigate sustainability of treatment effects, avoidance of surgical treatment for OSA, and long-term safety of anti-inflammatory medications for the treatment of OSA in children and include patient-centred outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study funding sources\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Three studies were supported by drug manufacturers."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23535
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSince December 2019, the world has struggled with the COVID-19 pandemic. Even after the introduction of various vaccines, this disease still takes a considerable toll. In order to improve the optimal allocation of resources and communication of prognosis, healthcare providers and patients need an accurate understanding of factors (such as obesity) that are associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes from the COVID-19 infection.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate obesity as an independent prognostic factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality among adult patients in whom infection with the COVID-19 virus is confirmed.\nSearch methods\nMEDLINE, Embase, two COVID-19 reference collections, and four Chinese biomedical databases were searched up to April 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included case-control, case-series, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and secondary analyses of randomised controlled trials if they evaluated associations between obesity and COVID-19 adverse outcomes including mortality, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospitalisation, severe COVID, and COVID pneumonia. Given our interest in ascertaining the independent association between obesity and these outcomes, we selected studies that adjusted for at least one factor other than obesity. Studies were evaluated for inclusion by two independent reviewers working in duplicate.\nData collection and analysis\nUsing standardised data extraction forms, we extracted relevant information from the included studies. When appropriate, we pooled the estimates of association across studies with the use of random-effects meta-analyses. The Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool provided the platform for assessing the risk of bias across each included study. In our main comparison, we conducted meta-analyses for each obesity class separately. We also meta-analysed unclassified obesity and obesity as a continuous variable (5 kg/m2 increase in BMI (body mass index)). We used the GRADE framework to rate our certainty in the importance of the association observed between obesity and each outcome. As obesity is closely associated with other comorbidities, we decided to prespecify the minimum adjustment set of variables including age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease for subgroup analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified 171 studies, 149 of which were included in meta-analyses. As compared to 'normal' BMI (18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2) or patients without obesity, those with obesity classes I (BMI 30 to 35 kg/m2), and II (BMI 35 to 40 kg/m2) were not at increased odds for mortality (Class I: odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.16, high certainty (15 studies, 335,209 participants); Class II: OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36, high certainty (11 studies, 317,925 participants)). However, those with class III obesity (BMI 40 kg/m2 and above) may be at increased odds for mortality (Class III: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.00, low certainty, (19 studies, 354,967 participants)) compared to normal BMI or patients without obesity. For mechanical ventilation, we observed increasing odds with higher classes of obesity in comparison to normal BMI or patients without obesity (class I: OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.59, 10 studies, 187,895 participants, moderate certainty; class II: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.96, 6 studies, 171,149 participants, high certainty; class III: OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.97, 12 studies, 174,520 participants, high certainty). However, we did not observe a dose-response relationship across increasing obesity classifications for ICU admission and hospitalisation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur findings suggest that obesity is an important independent prognostic factor in the setting of COVID-19. Consideration of obesity may inform the optimal management and allocation of limited resources in the care of COVID-19 patients.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the effects of obesity on COVID-19 outcomes?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": ""
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23536
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma is one of the most common long-term conditions worldwide, which places considerable pressure on patients, communities and health systems. The major international clinical guidelines now recommend the inclusion of self management programmes in the routine management of patients with asthma. These programmes have been associated with improved outcomes in patients with asthma. However, the implementation of self management programmes in clinical practice, and their uptake by patients, is still poor. Recent developments in mobile technology, such as smartphone and tablet computer apps, could help develop a platform for the delivery of self management interventions that are highly customisable, low-cost and easily accessible.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of using smartphone and tablet apps to facilitate the self management of individuals with asthma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health Library, Compendex/Inspec/Referex, IEEEXplore, ACM Digital Library, CiteSeerx and CAB abstracts via Web of Knowledge. We also searched registers of current and ongoing trials and the grey literature. We checked the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references. We searched for studies published from 2000 onwards. The latest search was run in June 2013.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared self management interventions for patients with clinician-diagnosed asthma delivered via smartphone apps to self management interventions delivered via traditional methods (e.g. paper-based asthma diaries).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Our primary outcomes were symptom scores; frequency of healthcare visits due to asthma exacerbations or complications and health-related quality of life.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs with a total of 408 participants. We found no cluster RCTs, controlled before and after studies or interrupted time series studies that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Both RCTs evaluated the effect of a mobile phone-based asthma self management intervention on asthma control by comparing it to traditional, paper-based asthma self management. One study allowed participants to keep daily entries of their asthma symptoms, asthma medication usage, peak flow readings and peak flow variability on their mobile phone, from which their level of asthma control was calculated remotely and displayed together with the corresponding asthma self management recommendations. In the other study, participants recorded the same readings twice daily, and they received immediate self management feedback in the form of a three-colour traffic light display on their phones. Participants falling into the amber zone of their action plan twice, or into the red zone once, received a phone call from an asthma nurse who enquired about the reasons for their uncontrolled asthma.\nWe did not conduct a meta-analysis of the data extracted due to the considerable degree of heterogeneity between these studies. Instead we adopted a narrative synthesis approach. Overall, the results were inconclusive and we judged the evidence to have a GRADE rating of low quality because further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. In addition, there was not enough information in one of the included studies to assess the risk of bias for the majority of the domains. Although the other included study was methodologically rigorous, it was not possible to blind participants or personnel in the study. Moreover, there are concerns in both studies in relation to attrition bias and other sources of bias.\nOne study showed that the use of a smartphone app for the delivery of an asthma self management programme had no statistically significant effect on asthma symptom scores (mean difference (MD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.25), asthma-related quality of life (MD of mean scores 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39), unscheduled visits to the emergency department (OR 7.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 140.76) or frequency of hospital admissions (odds ratio (OR) 3.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 29.83). The other included study found that the use of a smartphone app resulted in higher asthma-related quality of life scores at six-month follow-up (MD 5.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 9.52 for the physical component score of the SF-12 questionnaire; MD 6.00, 95% CI 2.51 to 9.49 for the mental component score of the SF-12 questionnaire), improved lung function (PEFR) at four (MD 27.80, 95% CI 4.51 to 51.09), five (MD 31.40, 95% CI 8.51 to 54.29) and six months (MD 39.20, 95% CI 16.58 to 61.82), and reduced visits to the emergency department due to asthma-related complications (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.99). Both studies failed to find any statistical differences in terms of adherence to the intervention and occurrence of other asthma-related complications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence base is not sufficient to advise clinical practitioners, policy-makers and the general public with regards to the use of smartphone and tablet computer apps for the delivery of asthma self management programmes. In order to understand the efficacy of apps as standalone interventions, future research should attempt to minimise the differential clinical management of patients between control and intervention groups. Those studies evaluating apps as part of complex, multicomponent interventions, should attempt to tease out the relative contribution of each intervention component. Consideration of the theoretical constructs used to inform the development of the intervention would help to achieve this goal. Finally, researchers should also take into account: the role of ancillary components in moderating the observed effects, the seasonal nature of asthma and long-term adherence to self management practices.\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 current evidence base is not sufficient to advise clinicians, policy-makers and the general public with regards to the effectiveness of smartphone and tablet computer apps for the delivery of asthma self management programmes.\nThis plain language summary is current as of June 2013."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23537
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCommunity ambulation refers to the ability of a person to walk in their own community, outside of their home and also indoors in private or public locations. Some people choose to walk for exercise or leisure and may walk with others as an important aspect of social functioning. Community ambulation is therefore an important skill for stroke survivors living in the community whose walking ability has been affected.\nObjectives\nTo determine: (1) whether interventions improve community ambulation for stroke survivors, and (2) if any specific intervention method improves community ambulation more than other interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (November 2013), PubMed (1946 to November 2013), EMBASE (1980 to November 2013), CINAHL (1982 to November 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to November 2013), Scopus (1960 to November 2013), Web of Science (1900 to November 2013), SPORTDiscus (1975 to November 2013), and PEDro, CIRRIE and REHABDATA (November 2013). We also searched ongoing trials registers (November 2013) and reference lists, and performed a cited reference search.\nSelection criteria\nSelection criteria included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs, studies in which participants are adult (aged 18 years or more) stroke survivors, and interventions that were aimed at improving community ambulation. We defined the primary outcome as participation; secondary outcomes included activity level outcomes related to gait and self-efficacy.\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author independently screened titles. Two review authors screened abstracts and full text articles, with a third review author was available to resolve any disagreements. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. All outcomes were continuous. The analysis for the primary outcome used the generic inverse variance methods for meta-analysis, using the standardised mean difference (SMD) and standard error (SE) from the participation outcomes. Analyses for secondary outcomes all used SMD or mean difference (MD). We completed analyses for each outcome with all studies, and by type of community ambulation intervention (community or outdoor ambulation practice, virtual practice, and imagery practice). We considered trials for each outcome to be of low quality due to some trial design considerations, such as who knew what group the participants were in, and the number of people who dropped out of the studies.\nMain results\nWe included five studies involving 266 participants (136 intervention; 130 control). All participants were adult stroke survivors, living in the community or a care home. Programmes to improve community ambulation consisted of walking practice in a variety of settings and environments in the community, or an indoor activity that mimicked community walking (including virtual reality or mental imagery). Three studies were funded by government agencies, and two had no funding.\nFrom two studies of 198 people there was low quality evidence for the effect of intervention on participation compared with control (SMD, 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.35 (using inverse variance). The CI for the effect of the intervention on gait speed was wide and does not exclude no difference (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.24; four studies, 98 participants, low quality evidence). We considered the quality of the evidence to be low for all the remaining outcomes in our review: Community Walk Test (MD -6.35, 95% CI -21.59 to 8.88); Walking Ability Questionnaire (MD 0.53, 95% CI -5.59 to 6.66); Six-Minute Walk Test (MD 39.62 metres, 95% CI -8.26 to 87.51) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.72). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because of a high risk of bias and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently insufficient evidence to establish the effect of community ambulation interventions or to support a change in clinical practice. More research is needed to determine if practicing outdoor or community walking will improve participation and community ambulation skills for stroke survivors living in the community.\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 term 'participation' refers to the ability of a person to engage in activities that are meaningful to them, such as leisure activities, paid or volunteer work, or socialising with others. For the primary outcome of participation we could not be sure whether the intervention improved participation compared with control (two studies). When considering how fast a person walks, it is unclear if the speed of walking may increase with a community ambulation intervention ( four studies). Based on the included studies, the effect of the intervention on the ability to walk, how far people could walk in six minutes or their confidence in walking is unclear. There is currently insufficient evidence to establish the effect of community ambulation interventions or to support a change in clinical practice. No adverse effects of the interventions were reported in any of the included studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23538
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis.\nAnticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life.\nHigher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants)\nHigher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data).\nAnticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants)\nAnticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data).\nOngoing studies\nWe found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.\nCompared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data).\nAlthough we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we 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 giving blood thinners to people hospitalised with COVID-19 as a preventive measure reduced the number of deaths compared to people who received no treatment or those who received a placebo treatment (an identical-seeming treatment but with no active ingredient). We also wanted to determine whether these individuals needed less support with breathing, whether they still developed harmful blood clots, whether they experienced bleeding and whether they experienced any other unwanted events."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23539
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAtherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide, yet ASCVD risk factor control and secondary prevention rates remain low. A fixed-dose combination of blood pressure- and cholesterol-lowering and antiplatelet treatments into a single pill, or polypill, has been proposed as one strategy to reduce the global burden of ASCVD.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of fixed-dose combination therapy on all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal ASCVD events, and adverse events. We also sought to determine the effect of fixed-dose combination therapy on blood pressure, lipids, adherence, discontinuation rates, health-related quality of life, and costs.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our previous searches in September 2016 of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and DARE, HTA, and HEED. We also searched two clinical trials registers in September 2016. We used no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of a fixed-dose combination therapy including at least one blood pressure-lowering and one lipid-lowering component versus usual care, placebo, or an active drug comparator for any treatment duration in adults 18 years old or older, with no restrictions on presence or absence of pre-existing ASCVD.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data for this update. We evaluated risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect models when heterogeneity was low (I2 < 50%) and random-effects models when heterogeneity was high (I2 ≥ 50%). We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nIn the initial review, we identified nine randomised controlled trials with a total of 7047 participants and four additional trials (n = 2012 participants; mean age range 62 to 63 years; 30% to 37% women) were included in this update. Eight of the 13 trials evaluated the effects of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy in populations without prevalent ASCVD, and the median follow-up ranged from six weeks to 23 months. More recent trials were generally larger with longer follow-up and lower risk of bias. The main risk of bias was related to lack of blinding of participants and personnel, which was inherent to the intervention. Compared with the comparator groups (placebo, usual care, or active drug comparator), the effects of the fixed-dose combination treatment on mortality (FDC = 1.0% versus control = 1.0%, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.89, I2 = 0%, 5 studies, N = 5300) and fatal and non-fatal ASCVD events (FDC = 4.7% versus control = 3.7%, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, I2 = 0%, 6 studies, N = 4517) were uncertain (low-quality evidence). The low event rates for these outcomes and indirectness of evidence for comparing fixed-dose combination to usual care versus individual drugs suggest that these results should be viewed with caution. Adverse events were common in both the intervention (32%) and comparator (27%) groups, with participants randomised to fixed-dose combination therapy being 16% (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.25, 11 studies, 6906 participants, moderate-quality evidence) more likely to report an adverse event . The mean differences in systolic blood pressure between the intervention and control arms was -6.34 mmHg (95% CI -9.03 to -3.64, 13 trials, 7638 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The mean differences (95% CI) in total and LDL cholesterol between the intervention and control arms were -0.61 mmol/L (95% CI -0.88 to -0.35, 11 trials, 6565 participants, low-quality evidence) and -0.70 mmol/L (95% CI -0.98 to -0.41, 12 trials, 7153 participants, moderate-quality evidence), respectively. There was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity in comparisons of blood pressure and lipids (I2 ≥ 80% for all) that could not be explained, so these results should be viewed with caution. Fixed-dose combination therapy improved adherence to a multidrug strategy by 44% (26% to 65%) compared with usual care (4 trials, 3835 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of fixed-dose combination therapy on all-cause mortality or ASCVD events are uncertain. A limited number of trials reported these outcomes, and the included trials were primarily designed to observe changes in ASCVD risk factor levels rather than clinical events, which may partially explain the observed differences in risk factors that were not translated into differences in clinical outcomes among the included trials. Fixed-dose combination therapy is associated with modest increases in adverse events compared with placebo, active comparator, or usual care but may be associated with improved adherence to a multidrug regimen. Ongoing, longer-term trials of fixed-dose combination therapy will help demonstrate whether short-term changes in risk factors might be maintained and lead to expected differences in clinical events based on these changes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence about the effect of fixed-dose combination drug therapy on the prevention of heart attacks and strokes. We found 13 studies including 9059 participants."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23540
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn a previous Cochrane Review, we found that for women with metastatic breast cancer unselected for triple-negative disease, there is little or no survival benefit and excess toxicity from platinum-based regimens. In subgroup analyses, however, we found preliminary low-quality evidence of a survival benefit from platinum-based regimens for women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). This review updates the evidence from the mTNBC subgroup analyses in the previous Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens with regimens not containing platinum in the management of women with mTNBC.\nSearch methods\nWe obtained relevant studies published prior to 2015 and their extracted results from the mTNBC subgroup analysis in the previous Cochrane Review. We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov between 2015 and 27 September 2019. We identified further potentially relevant studies from previous trial reports, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials comparing platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens with regimens not containing platinum in women with mTNBC. Individual trials could compare one or more platinum-based regimens to one or more non-platinum regimens; hence there could be more 'treatment-comparisons' (i.e. platinum regimen versus non-platinum regimen comparison) than trials. Trial participants may have been purposely selected for mTNBC or inadvertently selected as a subgroup.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility and quality, and extracted all relevant data from each study. We derived hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes, where possible, and used fixed-effect models for meta-analyses. We analysed objective tumour response rates (OTRRs) and toxicities as binary (dichotomous) outcomes with risk ratios (RRs) used as measures of effects. We extracted quality of life data, if available. We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence for time-to-event and tumour response outcomes.\nMain results\nThis review includes 13 treatment-comparisons involving 1349 women from 10 studies. Twelve of the 13 treatment-comparisons were included in one or more meta-analyses. Of the 13 treatment-comparisons, six and eight had published or provided time-to-event data on overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival/time to progression (PFS/TTP), respectively, that could be included in meta-analyses. Ten treatment-comparisons published or provided OTRR data that could be included in meta-analyses. Eight of the 13 treatment-comparisons were from studies that selected participants on the basis of mTNBC status, while the other five treatment-comparisons were from studies that reported mTNBC results as part of subgroup analyses.\nAnalysis of six treatment-comparisons indicated that platinum-containing regimens may have provided a small survival benefit to mTNBC patients (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00; 958 women; moderate-quality evidence) with no evidence of heterogeneity (P = 0.41; I2 = 1%). Data from eight treatment-comparisons showed that platinum regimens may improve PFS/TTP (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.88; 1077 women; very low-quality evidence). There was marked evidence of heterogeneity (P < 0.0001; I2 = 80%). There was also low-quality evidence of better tumour response for platinum recipients (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.59; 1205 women) with some evidence of heterogeneity (P = 0.01; I2 = 58%). The observed heterogeneity for the PFS/TTP and OTRR outcomes may reflect between-study differences and general difficulties in assessing tumour response, as well as the varying potencies of the comparators.\nCompared with women receiving non-platinum regimens: rates of grade 3 and 4 nausea/vomiting were higher for platinum recipients (RR 4.77, 95% CI 1.93 to 11.81; 655 women; low-quality evidence) and rates of grade 3 and 4 anaemia were higher for platinum recipients (RR 3.80, 95% CI 2.25 to 6.42; 843 women; low-quality evidence). In general, however, relatively few intervention-comparisons could be included in meta-analyses for adverse events. None of the studies reported quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor women with mTNBC, there was moderate-quality evidence of a small survival benefit from platinum-based regimens compared to non-platinum regimens. This finding is consistent with findings of a PFS/TTP benefit and improved tumour response from platinum-based regimens. These potential benefits, however, should be weighed against previously identified excess toxicities from platinum-based regimens, particularly regimens containing cisplatin. Further randomised trials of platinum-based regimens among women with mTNBC are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Chemotherapy containing platinum may provide a small survival benefit to mTNBC participants, but still large enough to justify its use. This potential benefit needs to be weighed against the higher risks of toxic side effects from platinum-based regimens compared to non-platinum regimens. Further studies are required before a more definitive conclusion can be made."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23541
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGlaucoma is a group of optic neuropathies characterized by progressive degeneration of the retinal ganglion cells, axonal loss and irreversible visual field defects. Glaucoma is classified as primary or secondary, and worldwide, primary glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness. Several subtypes of glaucoma exist, and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is the most common. The etiology of POAG is unknown, but current treatments aim to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP), thus preventing the onset and progression of the disease. Compared with traditional antiglaucomatous treatments, rho kinase inhibitors (ROKi) have a different pharmacodynamic. ROKi is the only current treatment that effectively lowers IOP by modulating the drainage of aqueous humor through the trabecular meshwork and Schlemm's canal. As ROKi are introduced into the market more widely, it is important to assess the efficacy and potential AEs of the treatment.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and safety of ROKi with placebo or other glaucoma medication in people diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma (OAG), primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).\nSearch methods\nWe used standard Cochrane methods and searched databases on 11 December 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized clinical trials examining commercially available ROKi-based monotherapy or combination therapy compared with placebo or other IOP-lowering medical treatments in people diagnosed with (P)OAG or OHT. We included trials where ROKi were administered according to official glaucoma guidelines. There were no restrictions regarding type, year or status of the publication.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias by using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool.\nMain results\nWe included 17 trials with 4953 participants diagnosed with (P)OAG or OHT. Fifteen were multicenter trials and 15 were masked trials. All participants were aged above 18 years. Trial duration varied from 24 hours to 12 months. Trials were conducted in the USA, Canada and Japan. Sixteen trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and one trial provided no information about funding sources. The trials compared ROKi monotherapy (netarsudil or ripasudil) or combination therapy with latanoprost (prostaglandin analog) or timolol (beta-blocker) with placebo, timolol, latanoprost or netarsudil. Reported outcomes were IOP and safety. Meta-analyses were applied to 13 trials (IOP reduction from baseline) and 15 trials (ocular AEs).\nOf the trials evaluating IOP, seven were at low risk, three had some concerns, and three were at high risk of bias. Three trials found that netarsudil monotherapy may be superior to placebo (mean difference [MD] 3.11 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.59 to 3.62; I2 = 0%; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from three trials found that timolol may be superior to netarsudil with an MD of 0.66 mmHg (95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I2 = 0%; 1415 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from four trials found that latanoprost may be superior to netarsudil with an MD of 0.97 mmHg (95% CI 0.67 to 1.27; I2 = 4%; 1283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nEvidence from three trials showed that, compared with monotherapy with latanoprost, combination therapy with netarsudil and latanoprost probably led to an additional pooled mean IOP reduction from baseline of 1.64 mmHg (95% CI −2.16 to −1.11; 1114 participants). Evidence from three trials showed that, compared with monotherapy with netarsudil, combination therapy with netarsudil and latanoprost probably led to an additional pooled mean IOP reduction from baseline of 2.66 mmHg (95% CI −2.98 to −2.35; 1132 participants). The certainty of evidence was moderate. One trial showed that, compared with timolol monotherapy, combination therapy with ripasudil and timolol may lead to an IOP reduction from baseline of 0.75 mmHg (95% −1.29 to −CI 0.21; 208 participants). The certainty of evidence was moderate.\nOf the trials assessing total ocular AEs, three were at low risk, four had some concerns, and eight were at high risk of bias.\nWe found very low-certainty evidence that netarsudil may lead to more ocular AEs compared with placebo, with 66 more ocular AEs per 100 person-months (95% CI 28 to 103; I2 = 86%; 4 trials, 188 participants). We found low-certainty evidence that netarsudil may lead to more ocular AEs compared with latanoprost, with 29 more ocular AEs per 100 person-months (95% CI 17 to 42; I2 = 95%; 4 trials, 1286 participants).\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that, compared with timolol, netarsudil probably led to 21 additional ocular AEs (95% CI 14 to 27; I2 = 93%; 4 trials, 1678 participants). Data from three trials (1132 participants) showed no evidence of differences in the incidence rate of AEs between combination therapy with netarsudil and latanoprost and netarsudil monotherapy (1 more event per 100 person-months, 95% CI 0 to 3); however, the certainty of evidence was low. Similarly, we found low-certainty evidence that, compared with latanoprost, combination therapy with netarsudil and latanoprost may cause 29 more ocular events per 100 person-months (95% CI 11 to 47; 3 trials, 1116 participants). We found moderate-certainty evidence that, compared with timolol monotherapy, combination therapy with ripasudil and timolol probably causes 35 more ocular events per 100 person-months (95% CI 25 to 45; 1 trial, 208 participants). In all included trials, ROKi was reportedly not associated with any particular serious AEs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence suggests that in people diagnosed with OHT or (P)OAG, the hypotensive effect of netarsudil may be inferior to latanoprost and slightly inferior to timolol. Combining netarsudil and latanoprost probably further reduces IOP compared with monotherapy. Netarsudil as mono- or combination therapy may result in more ocular AEs. However, the certainty of evidence was very low or low for all comparisons except timolol. In general, AEs were described as mild, transient, and reversible upon treatment discontinuation. ROKi was not associated with any particular serious AEs. Future trials of sufficient size and follow-up should be conducted to provide reliable information about glaucoma progression, relevant IOP measurements and a detailed description of AEs using similar terminology. This would ensure the robustness and confidence of the results and assess the intermediate- and long-term efficacy and safety of ROKi.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "What are the benefits and risks of rho kinase inhibitor eye drops to treat people with either glaucoma or increased eye pressure?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23542
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGlioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse.\nFirst recurrence (NMA findings)\nMedian OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following.\nBevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence).\nBevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed.\nRegorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed.\nTemozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed.\nFotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence).\nBevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWhen treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM.\nOther treatments\nThree studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation.\nSecond or later recurrence\nLimited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care.\nSevere adverse events (SAEs)\nThe BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Methods\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for relevant research studies comparing the effectiveness of different treatments for recurrent GBM. We used network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different treatments. NMA is a statistical method that allows different treatments to be looked at together to decide which is best. This method allows different treatments to be ranked according to their effectiveness, even if treatments have not been directly compared with each other in research studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23543
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTreadmill training, with or without body weight support using a harness, is used in rehabilitation and might help to improve walking after stroke. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2005 and 2014.\nObjectives\nTo determine if treadmill training and body weight support, individually or in combination, improve walking ability, quality of life, activities of daily living, dependency or death, and institutionalisation or death, compared with other physiotherapy gait-training interventions after stroke. The secondary objective was to determine the safety and acceptability of this method of gait training.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 14 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 February 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 February 2017), CINAHL (1982 to 14 February 2017), AMED (1985 to 14 February 2017) and SPORTDiscus (1949 to 14 February 2017). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings and ongoing trials and research registers, screened reference lists, and contacted trialists to identify further trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled and cross-over trials of treadmill training and body weight support, individually or in combination, for the treatment of walking after stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. The primary outcomes investigated were walking speed, endurance, and dependency.\nMain results\nWe included 56 trials with 3105 participants in this updated review. The average age of the participants was 60 years, and the studies were carried out in both inpatient and outpatient settings. All participants had at least some walking difficulties and many could not walk without assistance. Overall, the use of treadmill training did not increase the chances of walking independently compared with other physiotherapy interventions (risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.02; 18 trials, 1210 participants; P = 0.94; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Overall, the use of treadmill training in walking rehabilitation for people after stroke increased the walking velocity and walking endurance significantly. The pooled mean difference (MD) (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.06 m/s (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; 47 trials, 2323 participants; P < 0.0001; I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 14.19 metres (95% CI 2.92 to 25.46; 28 trials, 1680 participants; P = 0.01; I² = 27%; moderate-quality evidence). Overall, the use of treadmill training with body weight support in walking rehabilitation for people after stroke did not increase the walking velocity and walking endurance at the end of scheduled follow-up. The pooled MD (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.03 m/s (95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 12 trials, 954 participants; P = 0.50; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 21.64 metres (95% CI -4.70 to 47.98; 10 trials, 882 participants; P = 0.11; I² = 47%; low-quality evidence). In 38 studies with a total of 1571 participants who were independent in walking at study onset, the use of treadmill training increased the walking velocity significantly. The pooled MD (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.08 m/s (95% CI 0.05 to 0.12; P < 0.00001; I2 = 49%). There were insufficient data to comment on any effects on quality of life or activities of daily living. Adverse events and dropouts did not occur more frequently in people receiving treadmill training and these were not judged to be clinically serious events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, people after stroke who receive treadmill training, with or without body weight support, are not more likely to improve their ability to walk independently compared with people after stroke not receiving treadmill training, but walking speed and walking endurance may improve slightly in the short term. Specifically, people with stroke who are able to walk (but not people who are dependent in walking at start of treatment) appear to benefit most from this type of intervention with regard to walking speed and walking endurance. This review did not find, however, that improvements in walking speed and endurance may have persisting beneficial effects. Further research should specifically investigate the effects of different frequencies, durations, or intensities (in terms of speed increments and inclination) of treadmill training, as well as the use of handrails, in ambulatory participants, but not in dependent walkers.\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": "About 60% of people who have had a stroke have difficulties with walking, and improving walking is one of the main goals of rehabilitation. Treadmill training, with or without body weight support, uses specialist equipment to assist walking practice."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23544
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMedically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are physical symptoms for which no adequate medical explanation can be found after proper examination. The presence of MUPS is the key feature of conditions known as 'somatoform disorders'. Various psychological and physical therapies have been developed to treat somatoform disorders and MUPS. Although there are several reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and MUPS, a complete overview of the whole spectrum is missing.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform disorders unspecified, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, pain disorder, and alternative somatoform diagnoses proposed in the literature) and MUPS in adults, in comparison with treatment as usual, waiting list controls, attention placebo, psychological placebo, enhanced or structured care, and other psychological or physical therapies.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to November 2013. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. We ran an additional search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and a cited reference search on the Web of Science. We also searched grey literature, conference proceedings, international trial registers, and relevant systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs and cluster randomised controlled trials which involved adults primarily diagnosed with a somatoform disorder or an alternative diagnostic concept of MUPS, who were assigned to a non-pharmacological intervention compared with usual care, waiting list controls, attention or psychological placebo, enhanced care, or another psychological or physical therapy intervention, alone or in combination.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors, working in pairs, conducted data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation with another review author. We pooled data from studies addressing the same comparison using standardised mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) and a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were severity of somatic symptoms and acceptability of treatment.\nMain results\nWe included 21 studies with 2658 randomised participants. All studies assessed the effectiveness of some form of psychological therapy. We found no studies that included physical therapy.\nFourteen studies evaluated forms of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); the remainder evaluated behaviour therapies, third-wave CBT (mindfulness), psychodynamic therapies, and integrative therapy. Fifteen included studies compared the studied psychological therapy with usual care or a waiting list. Five studies compared the intervention to enhanced or structured care. Only one study compared cognitive behavioural therapy with behaviour therapy.\nAcross the 21 studies, the mean number of sessions ranged from one to 13, over a period of one day to nine months. Duration of follow-up varied between two weeks and 24 months. Participants were recruited from various healthcare settings and the open population. Duration of symptoms, reported by nine studies, was at least several years, suggesting most participants had chronic symptoms at baseline.\nDue to the nature of the intervention, lack of blinding of participants, therapists, and outcome assessors resulted in a high risk of bias on these items for most studies. Eleven studies (52% of studies) reported a loss to follow-up of more than 20%. For other items, most studies were at low risk of bias. Adverse events were seldom reported.\nFor all studies comparing some form of psychological therapy with usual care or a waiting list that could be included in the meta-analysis, the psychological therapy resulted in less severe symptoms at end of treatment (SMD -0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.16; 10 studies, 1081 analysed participants). This effect was considered small to medium; heterogeneity was moderate and overall quality of the evidence was low. Compared with usual care, psychological therapies resulted in a 7% higher proportion of drop-outs during treatment (RR acceptability 0.93; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 14 studies, 1644 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Removing one outlier study reduced the difference to 5%. Results for the subgroup of studies comparing CBT with usual care were similar to those in the whole group.\nFive studies (624 analysed participants) assessed symptom severity comparing some psychological therapy with enhanced care, and found no clear evidence of a difference at end of treatment (pooled SMD -0.19; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.04; considerable heterogeneity; low-quality evidence). Five studies (679 participants) showed that psychological therapies were somewhat less acceptable in terms of drop-outs than enhanced care (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen all psychological therapies included this review were combined they were superior to usual care or waiting list in terms of reduction of symptom severity, but effect sizes were small. As a single treatment, only CBT has been adequately studied to allow tentative conclusions for practice to be drawn. Compared with usual care or waiting list conditions, CBT reduced somatic symptoms, with a small effect and substantial differences in effects between CBT studies. The effects were durable within and after one year of follow-up. Compared with enhanced or structured care, psychological therapies generally were not more effective for most of the outcomes. Compared with enhanced care, CBT was not more effective. The overall quality of evidence contributing to this review was rated low to moderate.\nThe intervention groups reported no major harms. However, as most studies did not describe adverse events as an explicit outcome measure, this result has to be interpreted with caution.\nAn important issue was that all studies in this review included participants who were willing to receive psychological treatment. In daily practice, there is also a substantial proportion of participants not willing to accept psychological treatments for somatoform disorders or MUPS. It is unclear how large this group is and how this influences the relevance of CBT in clinical practice.\nThe number of studies investigating various treatment modalities (other than CBT) needs to be increased; this is especially relevant for studies concerning physical therapies. Future studies should include participants from a variety of age groups; they should also make efforts to blind outcome assessors and to conduct follow-up assessments until at least one year after the end of treatment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this review important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Up to one in three people consulting their doctor about physical symptoms have medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) that have no clear cause. MUPS are a key feature of health problems called somatoform disorders. MUPS and somatoform disorders often cause significant distress and cause people spending a lot of time consulting doctors and health professionals to try to find the cause of their symptoms and the correct treatment.\nTalking therapies for MUPS are recommended to help with mental health problems that exist alongside the physical symptoms, and to help people change the way they think about their physical symptoms. Physical therapies for MUPS aim to help people improve their physical functioning through various types of exercise. This review aimed to examine the evidence for talking therapies and physical therapies for MUPS and somatoform disorders."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23545
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTelephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I2 statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).\nMain results\nWe identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.\nAmong trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I2 = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.\nIn studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I2 = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I2 = 0%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate, meaning that further research is likely to have an important impact on our conclusions."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23546
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events.\nObjectives\nTo assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies.\nSearch methods\nIn January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nFourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.\nPrimary outcomes\nIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.\nIn the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).\nSecondary outcomes\nIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).\nWith non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.\nGiven the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.\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 available research up to January 2016 and found 260 studies with different designs. We included a number of non-randomised designs (where investigators did not assign participants to a certain treatment):\n– 7 comparative cohort studies (a group of people followed over time; six studies compared 968 patients who were taking methylphenidate to 166 controls who were not taking methylphenidate; and 1 study included 1224 patients that were taking or not taking methylphenidate during different time periods);\n– 4 patient-control studies (comparing two groups of people: 53,192 were taking methylphenidate, and 19,906 were not);\n– 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants) with no control group (i.e. who were not taking methylphenidate);\n– 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants were taking methylphenidate at a single time point); and\n– 70 patient reports/series (206 participants were taking methylphenidate).\nWe also included methylphenidate groups from randomised clinical trials (RCTs; experiments in which participants are randomly put into independent groups that compare different treatments). All RCTs assessed methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD and follow-up periods from RCTs. We only used the data from the intervention arm with methylphenidate. In all the included non-comparative cohort studies, 2,207,751 participants were taking methylphenidate. Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23547
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIntermittent catheterisation (IC) is a commonly recommended procedure for people with incomplete bladder emptying. Frequent complications are urinary tract infection (UTI), urethral trauma and discomfort during catheter use. Despite the many designs of intermittent catheter, including different lengths, materials and coatings, it is unclear which catheter techniques, strategies or designs affect the incidence of UTI and other complications, measures of satisfaction/quality of life and cost-effectiveness.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of different catheterisation techniques, strategies and catheter designs, and their impact, on UTI and other complications, and measures of satisfaction/quality of life among adults and children whose long-term bladder condition is managed by intermittent catheterisation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 12 April 2021), the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings, and we attempted to contact other investigators for unpublished data or for clarification.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or randomised cross-over trials comparing at least two different catheterisation techniques, strategies or catheter designs.\nData collection and analysis\nAs per standard Cochrane methodological procedures, two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes included the number of people with symptomatic urinary tract infections, complications such as urethral trauma/bleeding, comfort and ease of use of catheters, participant satisfaction and preference, quality of life measures and economic outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 23 trials (1339 randomised participants), including twelve RCTs and eleven cross-over trials. Most were small (fewer than 60 participants completed), although three trials had more than 100 participants. Length of follow-up ranged from one month to 12 months and there was considerable variation in definitions of UTI. Most of the data from cross-over trials were not presented in a useable form for this review.\nRisk of bias was unclear in many domains due to insufficient information in the trial reports and several trials were judged to have a high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding and a high risk of attrition bias. The certainty of evidence was downgraded for risk of bias, and imprecision due to low numbers of participants.\nAseptic versus clean technique\nWe are uncertain if there is any difference between aseptic and clean techniques in the risk of symptomatic UTI because the evidence is low-certainty and the 95% confidence interval (CI) is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 1.20 95% CI 0.54 to 2.66; one study; 36 participants). We identified no data relating to the risk of adverse events comparing aseptic and clean techniques or participant satisfaction or preference.\nSingle-use (sterile) catheter versus multiple-use (clean)\nWe are uncertain if there is any difference between single-use and multiple-use catheters in terms of the risk of symptomatic UTI because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CI is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.55, 1.74; two studies; 97 participants). One study comparing single-use catheters to multiple-use catheters reported zero adverse events in either group; no other adverse event data were reported for this comparison. We identified no data for participant satisfaction or preference.\nHydrophilic-coated catheters versus uncoated catheters\nWe are uncertain if there is any difference between hydrophilic and uncoated catheters in terms of the number of people with symptomatic UTI because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CI is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.14; two studies; 98 participants). Uncoated catheters probably slightly reduce the risk of urethral trauma and bleeding compared to hydrophilic-coated catheters (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if hydrophilic-coated catheters compared with uncoated catheters has any effect on participant satisfaction measured on a 0-10 scale (MD 0.7 higher, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.21; very low-certainty evidence; one study; 114 participants). Due to the paucity of data, we could not assess the certainty of evidence relating to participant preference (one cross-over trial of 29 participants reported greater preference for a hydrophilic-coated catheter (19/29) compared to an uncoated catheter (10/29)).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite a total of 23 trials, the paucity of useable data and uncertainty of the evidence means that it remains unclear whether the incidence of UTI or other complications is affected by use of aseptic or clean technique, single (sterile) or multiple-use (clean) catheters, coated or uncoated catheters or different catheter lengths. The current research evidence is uncertain and design and reporting issues are significant. More well-designed trials are needed. Such trials should include analysis of cost-effectiveness because there are likely to be substantial differences associated with the use of different catheterisation techniques and strategies, and catheter designs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Strategies: Single-use versus multiple-use\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There are two types of catheter use: single-use and multiple-use. Re-use of catheters means that the catheter is cleaned and re-used a varying number of times (e.g. for up to 24 hours or for one week/month)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23548
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCollective leadership is strongly advocated by international stakeholders as a key approach for health service delivery, as a response to increasingly complex forms of organisation defined by rapid changes in health technology, professionalisation and growing specialisation. Inadequate leadership weakens health systems and can contribute to adverse events, including refusal to prioritise and implement safety recommendations consistently, and resistance to addressing staff burnout. Globally, increases in life expectancy and the number of people living with multiple long-term conditions contribute to greater complexity of healthcare systems. Such a complex environment requires the contribution and leadership of multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of collective leadership for healthcare providers on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being, when compared with usual centralised leadership approaches.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 5 January 2021. We also searched grey literature, checked references for additional citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply any limits on language.\nSelection criteria\nTwo groups of two authors independently reviewed, screened and selected studies for inclusion; the principal author was part of both groups to ensure consistency. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared collective leadership interventions with usual centralised leadership or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nThree groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality; the principal author took part in all groups. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified three randomised trials for inclusion in our synthesis. All studies were conducted in acute care inpatient settings; the country settings were Canada, Iran and the USA. A total of 955 participants were included across all the studies. There was considerable variation in participants, interventions and measures for quantifying outcomes. We were only able to complete a meta-analysis for one outcome (leadership) and completed a narrative synthesis for other outcomes. We judged all studies as having an unclear risk of bias overall.\nCollective leadership interventions probably improve leadership (3 RCTs, 955 participants). Collective leadership may improve team performance (1 RCT, 164 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of collective leadership on clinical performance (1 RCT, 60 participants). We are uncertain about the intervention effect on healthcare outcomes, including health status (inpatient mortality) (1 RCT, 60 participants). Collective leadership may slightly improve staff well-being by reducing work-related stress (1 RCT, 164 participants). We identified no direct evidence concerning burnout and psychological symptoms. We are uncertain of the intervention effects on unintended consequences, specifically on staff absence (1 RCT, 60 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCollective leadership involves multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge with the potential to influence positively the quality of care and staff well-being. Our confidence in the effects of collective leadership interventions on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being is moderate in leadership outcomes, low in team performance and work-related stress, and very low for clinical performance, inpatient mortality and staff absence outcomes. The evidence was of moderate, low and very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning future evidence may change our interpretation of the results. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, with consistent reporting of leadership, team performance, clinical performance, health status and staff well-being outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Collective leadership involves multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge. Based on the available evidence, we cannot be sure it makes much difference for professional actions, patient health care or staff well-being. Our confidence in these results varies from moderate to very low, severely limited by the low quality and number of included studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23549
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCannabis and cannabinoids are often promoted as treatment for many illnesses and are widely used among patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Few studies have evaluated the use of these agents in UC. Further, cannabis has potential for adverse events and the long-term consequences of cannabis and cannabinoid use in UC are unknown.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of patients with UC.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, AMED, PsychINFO, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov and the European Clinical Trials Register from inception to 2 January 2018. Conference abstracts and references were searched to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form or dose of cannabis or its cannabinoid derivatives (natural or synthetic) to placebo or an active therapy for adults (> 18 years) with UC were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were clinical remission and relapse (as defined by the primary studies). Secondary outcomes included clinical response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic response, histological response, quality of life, C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin measurements, symptom improvement, adverse events, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, psychotropic adverse events, and cannabis dependence and withdrawal effects. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI. Data were pooled for analysis when the interventions, patient groups and outcomes were sufficiently similar (determined by consensus). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. GRADE was used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nTwo RCTs (92 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One study (N = 60) compared 10 weeks of cannabidiol capsules with up to 4.7% D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with placebo capsules in participants with mild to moderate UC. The starting dose of cannabidiol was 50 mg twice daily increasing to 250 mg twice daily if tolerated. Another study (N = 32) compared 8 weeks of therapy with two cannabis cigarettes per day containing 0.5 g of cannabis, corresponding to 23 mg THC/day to placebo cigarettes in participants with UC who did not respond to conventional medical treatment. No studies were identified that assessed cannabis therapy in quiescent UC. The first study was rated as low risk of bias and the second study (published as an abstract) was rated as high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. The studies were not pooled due to differences in the interventional drug.\nThe effect of cannabidiol capsules (100 mg to 500 mg daily) compared to placebo on clinical remission and response is uncertain. Clinical remission at 10 weeks was achieved by 24% (7/29) of the cannabidiol group compared to 26% (8/31) in the placebo group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.25; low certainty evidence). Clinical response at 10 weeks was achieved in 31% (9/29) of cannabidiol participants compared to 22% (7/31) of placebo patients (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.21; low certainty evidence). Serum CRP levels were similar in both groups after 10 weeks of therapy. The mean CRP in the cannabidiol group was 9.428 mg/L compared to 7.638 mg/L in the placebo group (MD 1.79, 95% CI -5.67 to 9.25; moderate certainty evidence). There may be a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life at 10 weeks, measured with the IBDQ scale (MD 17.4, 95% CI -3.45 to 38.25; moderate certainty evidence). Adverse events were more frequent in cannabidiol participants compared to placebo. One hundred per cent (29/29) of cannabidiol participants had an adverse event, compared to 77% (24/31) of placebo participants (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.05 to1.56; moderate certainty evidence). However, these adverse events were considered to be mild or moderate in severity. Common adverse events included dizziness, disturbance in attention, headache, nausea and fatigue. None (0/29) of the cannabidiol participants had a serious adverse event compared to 10% (3/31) of placebo participants (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.83; low certainty evidence). Serious adverse events in the placebo group included worsening of UC and one complicated pregnancy. These serious adverse events were thought to be unrelated to the study drug. More participants in the cannabidiol group withdrew due to an adverse event than placebo participants. Thirty-four per cent (10/29) of cannabidiol participants withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 16% (5/31) of placebo participants (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.83 to 5.51; low certainty evidence). Withdrawls in the cannabidiol group were mostly due to dizziness. Withdrawals in the placebo group were due to worsening UC.\nThe effect of cannabis cigarettes (23 mg THC/day) compared to placebo on mean disease activity, CRP levels and mean fecal calprotectin levels is uncertain. After 8 weeks, the mean disease activity index score in cannabis participants was 4 compared with 8 in placebo participants (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.98 to -2.02). After 8 weeks, the mean change in CRP levels was similar in both groups (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.35 to 0.75; low certainty evidence). The mean fecal calprotectin level in cannabis participants was 115 mg/dl compared to 229 mg/dl in placebo participants (MD -114.00, 95% CI -246.01 to 18.01). No serious adverse events were observed. This study did not report on clinical remission, clinical response, quality of life, adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of cannabis and cannabidiol on UC are uncertain, thus no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of cannabis or cannabidiol in adults with active UC can be drawn.There is no evidence for cannabis or cannabinoid use for maintenance of remission in UC. Further studies with a larger number of patients are required to assess the effects of cannabis in UC patients with active and quiescent disease. Different doses of cannabis and routes of administration should be investigated. Lastly, follow-up is needed to assess the long term safety outcomes of frequent cannabis use.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are cannabis and cannabinoids?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cannabis is a widely used recreational drug that has multiple effects on the body via the endocannabinoid system. Cannabis contains multiple sub-ingredients called cannabinoids. Cannabis and cannabis oil containing specific cannabinoids can cause cognitive changes such as feelings of euphoria and altered sensory perception. However, some cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol, do not have a psychoactive effect. Cannabis and some cannabinoids have been shown to decrease inflammation in animal and laboratory models which suggests it may help people with ulcerative colitis. For example, cannabidiol is one such cannabinoid that has shown anti-inflammatory activity in mice."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23550
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPlasmodium vivax (P vivax) is a focus of malaria elimination. It is important because P vivax and Plasmodium falciparum infection are co-endemic in some areas. There are asymptomatic carriers of P vivax, and the treatment for P vivax and Plasmodium ovale malaria differs from that used in other types of malaria. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) will help distinguish P vivax from other malaria species to help treatment and elimination. There are RDTs available that detect P vivax parasitaemia through the detection of P vivax-specific lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) antigens.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for detecting P vivax malaria infection in people living in malaria-endemic areas who present to ambulatory healthcare facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria; and to identify which types and brands of commercial tests best detect P vivax malaria.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases up to 30 July 2019: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), both in the Web of Science.\nSelection criteria\nStudies comparing RDTs with a reference standard (microscopy or polymerase chain reaction (PCR)) in blood samples from patients attending ambulatory health facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria in P vivax-endemic areas.\nData collection and analysis\nFor each included study, two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-piloted data extraction form. The methodological quality of the studies were assessed using a tailored Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We grouped studies according to commercial brand of the RDT and performed meta-analysis when appropriate. The results given by the index tests were based on the antibody affinity (referred to as the strength of the bond between an antibody and an antigen) and avidity (referred to as the strength of the overall bond between a multivalent antibody and multiple antigens). All analyses were stratified by the type of reference standard. The bivariate model was used to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), this model was simplified when studies were few. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies that assessed the accuracy of six different RDT brands (CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test, Falcivax Device Rapid test, Immuno-Rapid Malaria Pf/Pv test, SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pv test, OnSite Pf/Pv test and Test Malaria Pf/Pv rapid test) for detecting P vivax malaria. One study directly compared the accuracy of two RDT brands. Of the 10 studies, six used microscopy, one used PCR, two used both microscopy and PCR separately and one used microscopy corrected by PCR as the reference standard. Four of the studies were conducted in Ethiopia, two in India, and one each in Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia and Sudan.\nThe studies often did not report how patients were selected. In the patient selection domain, we judged the risk of bias as unclear for nine studies. We judged all studies to be of unclear applicability concern. In the index test domain, we judged most studies to be at low risk of bias, but we judged nine studies to be of unclear applicability concern. There was poor reporting on lot testing, how the RDTs were stored, and background parasitaemia density (a key variable determining diagnostic accuracy of RDTs). Only half of the included studies were judged to be at low risk of bias in the reference standard domain, Studies often did not report whether the results of the reference standard could classify the target condition or whether investigators knew the results of the RDT when interpreting the results of the reference standard. All 10 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias in the flow and timing domain.\nOnly two brands were evaluated by more than one study. Four studies evaluated the CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test against microscopy and two studies evaluated the Falcivax Device Rapid test against microscopy. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 99% (95% CI 94% to 100%; 251 patients, moderate-certainty evidence) and 99% (95% CI 99% to 100%; 2147 patients, moderate-certainty evidence) for CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test.\nFor a prevalence of 20%, about 206 people will have a positive CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test result and the remaining 794 people will have a negative result. Of the 206 people with positive results, eight will be incorrect (false positives), and of the 794 people with a negative result, two would be incorrect (false negative).\nFor the Falcivax Device Rapid test, the pooled sensitivity was 77% (95% CI: 53% to 91%, 89 patients, low-certainty evidence) and the pooled specificity was 99% (95% CI: 98% to 100%, 621 patients, moderate-certainty evidence), respectively. For a prevalence of 20%, about 162 people will have a positive Falcivax Device Rapid test result and the remaining 838 people will have a negative result. Of the 162 people with positive results, eight will be incorrect (false positives), and of the 838 people with a negative result, 46 would be incorrect (false negative).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test was found to be highly sensitive and specific in comparison to microscopy for detecting P vivax in ambulatory healthcare in endemic settings, with moderate-certainty evidence. The number of studies included in this review was limited to 10 studies and we were able to estimate the accuracy of 2 out of 6 RDT brands included, the CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test and the Falcivax Device Rapid test. Thus, the differences in sensitivity and specificity between all the RDT brands could not be assessed. More high-quality studies in endemic field settings are needed to assess and compare the accuracy of RDTs designed to detect P vivax.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Malaria infection is caused mainly by two species of malaria parasite: Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax. The aim of this review was to evaluate rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to diagnose P vivax infection."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23551
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are common and may lead to complications. Most children experience between three and six ARTIs annually. Although most infections are self-limiting, symptoms can be distressing. Many treatments are used to control symptoms and shorten illness duration. Most treatments have minimal benefit and may lead to adverse events. Oral homeopathic medicinal products could play a role in childhood ARTI management if evidence for their effectiveness is established. This is an update of a review first published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of oral homeopathic medicinal products compared with placebo or conventional therapy to prevent and treat ARTIs in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 3), including the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to 16 March 2022), Embase (2010 to 16 March 2022), CINAHL (1981 to 16 March 2022), AMED (1985 to 16 March 2022), CAMbase (searched 16 March 2022), and British Homeopathic Library (searched 26 June 2013 - no longer operating). We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (16 March 2022), checked references, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or double-blind cluster-RCTs comparing oral homeopathy medicinal products with identical placebo or self-selected conventional treatments to prevent or treat ARTIs in children aged 0 to 16 years.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nIn this 2022 update, we identified three new RCTs involving 251 children, for a total of 11 included RCTs with 1813 children receiving oral homeopathic medicinal products or a control treatment (placebo or conventional treatment) for ARTIs. All studies focused on upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), with only one study including some lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). Six treatment studies examined the effect on URTI recovery, and five studies investigated the effect on preventing URTIs after one to four months of treatment. Two treatment and three prevention studies involved homeopaths individualising treatment. The other studies used predetermined, non-individualised treatments. All studies involved highly diluted homeopathic medicinal products, with dilutions ranging from 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-200.\nWe identified several limitations to the included studies, in particular methodological inconsistencies and high attrition rates, failure to conduct intention-to-treat analysis, selective reporting, and apparent protocol deviations. We assessed three studies as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, and many studies had additional domains with unclear risk of bias. Four studies received funding from homeopathy manufacturers; one study support from a non-government organisation; two studies government support; one study was co-sponsored by a university; and three studies did not report funding support.\nMethodological inconsistencies and significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded robust quantitative meta-analysis. Only four outcomes were common to more than one study and could be combined for analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were generally small with wide confidence intervals (CI), and the contributing studies found conflicting effects, so there was little certainty that the efficacy of the intervention could be ascertained. All studies assessed as at low risk of bias showed no benefit from oral homeopathic medicinal products, whilst trials at unclear or high risk of bias reported beneficial effects.\nFor the comparison of individualised homeopathy versus placebo or usual care for the prevention of ARTIs, two trials reported on disease severity; due to heterogeneity the data were not combined, but neither study demonstrated a clinically significant difference. We combined data from two trials for the outcome need for antibiotics (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence).\nFor the comparison of non-individualised homeopathy versus placebo or usual care for the prevention of ARTIs, only the outcome recurrence of ARTI was reported by more than one trial; data from three studies were combined for this outcome (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.72; low-certainty evidence).\nFor the comparison of both individualised and non-individualised homeopathy versus placebo or usual care for the treatment of ARTIs, two studies provided data on short-term cure (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 19.54) and long-term cure (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.96; very low-certainty evidence). The studies demonstrated an opposite direction of effect for both outcomes.\nSix studies reported on disease severity but were not combined as they used different scoring systems and scales. Three studies reported adverse events (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.16 to 4.03; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nPooling of five prevention and six treatment studies did not show any consistent benefit of homeopathic medicinal products compared to placebo on ARTI recurrence or cure rates in children. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low to very low for the majority of outcomes. We found no evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic medicinal products for ARTIs in children. Adverse events were poorly reported, and we could not draw conclusions regarding safety.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We have little confidence in the evidence because the studies involved only small numbers of children, used different types of homeopathic medicines for various ARTIs, contained numerous biases, and failed to report information about important outcomes. Further research could provide results that differ from the results of this review."
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.