dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum
|
23652
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe introduction and advancement of enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants is often delayed because of concerns that early full enteral feeding will not be well tolerated or may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. Early full enteral feeding, however, might increase nutrient intake and growth rates; accelerate intestinal physiological, metabolic, and microbiomic postnatal transition; and reduce the risk of complications associated with intravascular devices for fluid administration.\nObjectives\nTo determine how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth and adverse events such as necrotising enterocolitis, in preterm or low birth weight infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials to October 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials that compared early full enteral feeding with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately assessed trial eligibility, evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RR), risk differences, and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included six trials. All were undertaken in the 2010s in neonatal care facilities in India. In total, 526 infants participated. Most were very preterm infants of birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. Trials were of good methodological quality, but a potential source of bias was that parents, clinicians, and investigators were not masked. The trials compared early full feeding (60 mL/kg to 80 mL/kg on day one after birth) with minimal enteral feeding (typically 20 mL/kg on day one) supplemented with intravenous fluids. Feed volumes were advanced daily as tolerated by 20 mL/kg to 30 mL/kg body weight to a target steady-state volume of 150 mL/kg to 180 mL/kg/day. All participating infants were fed preferentially with maternal expressed breast milk, with two trials supplementing insufficient volumes with donor breast milk and four supplementing with preterm formula.\nFew data were available to assess growth parameters. One trial (64 participants) reported a slower rate of weight gain (median difference –3.0 g/kg/day), and another (180 participants) reported a faster rate of weight gain in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 1.2 g/kg/day). We did not meta-analyse these data (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported rate of head circumference growth. One trial reported that the mean z-score for weight at hospital discharge was higher in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect on necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.54; 6 trials, 522 participants; I² = 51%; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTrials provided insufficient data to determine with any certainty how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth in preterm or low birth weight infants. We are uncertain whether early full enteral feeding affects the risk of necrotising enterocolitis because of the risk of bias in the trials (due to lack of masking), inconsistency, and imprecision.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "there is not enough evidence to determine whether early full milk feeds benefit preterm or low birth weight infants. New trials would be needed to resolve this uncertainty."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23653
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Apart from chronic HBV infection, the complications related to acute HBV infection are severe acute viral hepatitis and fulminant hepatitis characterised by liver failure. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HBV infection remains controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HBV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available treatments according to their safety and efficacy. As it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) registers to August 2016 to identify RCTs on pharmacological interventions for acute HBV infection.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status in participants with acute HBV infection. We excluded trials if participants had previously undergone liver transplantation and had other coexisting viral diseases such as hepatitis C virus and HIV. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo, or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nSeven trials (597 participants) met our review inclusion criteria. All trials provided information for one or more outcomes; however, five participants were excluded from analysis by study authors. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Overall, all the evidence was low or very low quality evidence because of risk of bias (downgraded one level for risk of bias), small sample size (downgraded one level for imprecision), and wide CIs (downgraded one more level for imprecision in some comparisons). Of the seven trials, six were two-armed trials, while one trial was a three-armed trial. The comparisons included hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) versus placebo (one trial; 55 participants); interferon versus placebo (two trials; 200 participants); lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention (four trials; 316 participants); lamivudine versus entecavir (one trial; 90 participants); and entecavir versus no intervention (one trial; 131 participants). One trial included only people with acute HBV with hepatic encephalopathy (i.e. people with fulminant liver failure); one trial included only people with severe acute HBV, but it did not state whether any of the people also had fulminant HBV infection; three trials excluded fulminant HBV infection; and two trials did not report the severity of acute HBV infection. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from three to 12 months in the trials that provided this information.\nThere was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality (less than one year) in any of the comparisons: HBIG versus placebo (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.54; participants = 55; 1 trial), lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.99; participants = 250; 2 trials); lamivudine versus entecavir (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 11.65; participants = 90; 1 trial), or entecavir versus no intervention (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.12 to 9.47; participants = 131; 1 trial). The proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection was higher in the lamivudine group than the placebo or no intervention group (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.77; participants = 285; 3 trials) and in the lamivudine group versus entecavir group (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 10.13; participants = 90; 1 trial). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection between the entecavir and the no intervention groups (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.49; participants = 131; 1 trial). None of the trials reported progression to fulminant HBV infection. Three trials with 371 participants reported serious adverse events. There were no serious adverse events in any of the groups (no intervention: 0/183 (0%), interferon: 0/67 (0%), lamivudine: 0/100 (0%), and entecavir: 0/21 (0%)). The proportion of people with adverse events was higher in the interferon group than the placebo group (OR 348.16, 95% CI 45.39 to 2670.26; participants = 200; 2 trials). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of people with adverse events between the lamivudine group and the placebo or no intervention group (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.94; participants = 35; 1 trial) or number of adverse events between the lamivudine group and the placebo or no intervention group (rate ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.91; participants = 35; 1 trial). One trial with 100 participants reported quality of life at one week. The scale used to report the health-related quality of life was not stated and lacked information on whether higher score meant better or worse, making it difficult to interpret the results. None of the trials reported quality of life beyond one week or other clinical outcomes such as mortality beyond one year, liver transplantation, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma.\nTwo trials received funding from pharmaceutical companies; three trials were funded by parties without any vested interest in the results or did not receive any special funding; the source of funding was not available in the remaining two trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow or very low quality evidence suggests that progression to chronic HBV infection was higher in people receiving lamivudine compared with placebo, no intervention, or entecavir. Low quality evidence suggests that interferon may increase the adverse events after treatment for acute HBV infection. Based on a very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of benefit of any intervention in acute HBV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the results and further RCTs are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There was no evidence of differences in death at less than one year between any of the treated and untreated groups. The percentage of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection was higher in lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention and lamivudine versus entecavir groups. There was no evidence of difference in the proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection between entecavir and no intervention. None of the trials reported progression to fulminant HBV infection. There were no serious adverse events in any of the treatment groups in the trials that reported this information. The percentage of people who developed adverse events was higher in the interferon group (100%) than in the placebo (dummy treatment) group (27%) in the trials that reported this information. There was no evidence of differences in the percentage of people who developed adverse events or the total number of adverse events in the comparison between lamivudine versus no treatment. One trial reported quality of life at one week; however, the information provided was insufficient to determine whether there was any difference between the interferon and placebo groups. None of the trials reported quality of life beyond one week or other important outcomes such as death beyond one year, severe progressive liver damage, liver failure, requirement for liver transplantation, or liver cancer. There is currently no evidence of benefit of any treatment in acute HBV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the results and high-quality RCTs are required."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23654
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nManipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes.\nSearch methods\nReview authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs).\nMain results\nWe included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons).\nCervical manipulation versus inactive control:For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up.\nCervical manipulation versus another active treatment:For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up.\nThoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality).\nThoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain.\nMobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control.\nMobilisation versus another active treatment:For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed.\nFindings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.\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": "Neck pain can cause varying levels of disability for the affected individual and is a common musculoskeletal complaint. Neck pain can be accompanied by pain radiating down the arms (radiculopathy) or by headache (cervicogenic headache). Manipulation (adjustments to the spine) and mobilisation (movement imposed on joints and muscles) can be used alone or in combination with other physiotherapies to treat neck pain."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23655
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAntiviral therapy for recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation is controversial due to unresolved balance between benefits and harms.\nObjectives\nTo compare the therapeutic benefits and harms of different antiviral regimens in patients with hepatitis C re-infected grafts after liver transplantation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing various antiviral therapies (alone or in combination) in the treatment of hepatitis C virus recurrence in liver transplantation for the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case-analysis. In the presence of only trials for a dichotomous outcome, we performed the Fisher's exact test.\nMain results\nOverall, 17 trials with 736 patients met the inclusion criteria for this review. All trials had high risk of bias. Five hundred and one patients randomised in 11 trials provided information for various comparisons in this systematic review after excluding post-randomisation drop-outs and patients from trials that did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The comparisons for which outcomes were available included pegylated (peg) interferon versus control; peg interferon plus ribavirin versus control; ribavirin plus peg interferon versus peg interferon; peg interferon (1.5 μg/kg/week) plus ribavirin versus peg interferon (0.5 μg/kg/week) plus ribavirin; amantadine plus peg interferon plus ribavirin versus peg interferon plus ribavirin; interferon versus control; interferon plus ribavirin versus control; ribavirin versus interferon; and ribavirin versus placebo. Long-term follow-up was not available in these trials. There were no significant differences in mortality, retransplantation, graft rejections requiring retransplantation or medical treatment, or fibrosis worsening between the groups in any of the comparisons in which these outcomes were reported. Quality of life and liver decompensation were not reported in any of the trials. There was a significantly higher proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events in the ribavirin plus peg interferon combination therapy group than in the peg interferon monotherapy group (1 trial; 56 participants; 17/28 (60.7%) in the intervention group versus 5/28 (17.9%) in the control group; RR 3.40; 95% CI 1.46 to 7.94). There was no significant difference in proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events or in the number of serious adverse events between the intervention and control groups in the other comparisons that reported serious adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nConsidering the lack of clinical benefit, there is currently no evidence to recommend or refute antiviral treatment for recurrent liver graft infection with hepatitis C virus. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risk of random errors with adequate duration of follow-up are necessary.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients who died, required retransplantation, developed graft rejection that required treatment, or increased liver damage (as evaluated using a microscope) between the groups in any of the comparisons in which these outcomes were reported. Quality of life and liver decompensation were not reported in any of the trials. There was a significantly higher proportion of participants who developed serious complications in the ribavirin plus peg interferon combination therapy compared with peg interferon monotherapy. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants who developed serious complications or in the number of serious adverse events between the intervention and control groups in the other comparisons that reported serious complications. There is currently no evidence to recommend antiviral treatment for patients with recurrence of chronic hepatitis C virus infection either in primary liver transplantation or retransplantation."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23656
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBurn injuries are the fourth most common traumatic injury, causing an estimated 180,000 deaths annually worldwide. Superficial burns can be managed with dressings alone, but deeper burns or those that fail to heal promptly are usually treated surgically. Acute burns surgery aims to debride burnt skin until healthy tissue is reached, at which point skin grafts or temporising dressings are applied. Conventional debridement is performed with an angled blade, tangentially shaving burned tissue until healthy tissue is encountered. Hydrosurgery, an alternative to conventional blade debridement, simultaneously debrides, irrigates, and removes tissue with the aim of minimising damage to uninjured tissue. Despite the increasing use of hydrosurgery, its efficacy and the risk of adverse events following surgery for burns is unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of hydrosurgical debridement and skin grafting versus conventional surgical debridement and skin grafting for the treatment of acute partial-thickness burns.\nSearch methods\nIn December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people of any age with acute partial-thickness burn injury and assessed the use of hydrosurgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nOne RCT met the inclusion criteria of this review. The study sample size was 61 paediatric participants with acute partial-thickness burns of 3% to 4% total burn surface area. Participants were randomised to hydrosurgery or conventional debridement. There may be little or no difference in mean time to complete healing (mean difference (MD) 0.00 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) −6.25 to 6.25) or postoperative infection risk (risk ratio 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11). These results are based on very low-certainty evidence, which was downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision.\nThere may be little or no difference in operative time between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement (MD 0.2 minutes, 95% CI −12.2 to 12.6); again, the certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in scar outcomes at six months. Health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse outcomes were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review contains one randomised trial of hydrosurgery versus conventional debridement in a paediatric population with low percentage of total body surface area burn injuries. Based on the available trial data, there may be little or no difference between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement in terms of time to complete healing, postoperative infection, operative time, and scar outcomes at six months. These results are based on very low-certainty evidence. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse event outcomes is required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In this Cochrane Review, we wanted to know whether burns treated with hydrosurgery heal more quickly and with fewer infections than burns treated with a knife. We also wanted to see whether there were any differences in overall quality of life, how well the wound healed in terms of scarring and the amount of medical resources used (using measures like the number of dressing changes and burn clinic appointments, length of hospital stay, and whether further surgery was needed)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23657
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a substantial challenge and burden to patients, healthcare systems and society. The increased proportion of older adults in the world population means that the absolute number of hip fractures is rising rapidly across the globe. Most hip fractures are treated surgically. This Cochrane Review evaluates evidence for implants used to treat extracapsular hip fractures.\nObjectives\nTo assess the relative effects of cephalomedullary nails versus extramedullary fixation implants for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and the National Technical Information Service in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles, and conducted backward-citation searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing cephalomedullary nails with extramedullary implants for treating fragility extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We excluded studies in which all or most fractures were caused by a high-energy trauma or specific pathologies other than osteoporosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for seven critical outcomes: performance of activities of daily living (ADL), delirium, functional status, health-related quality of life, mobility, mortality (reported within four months of surgery as 'early mortality'; and reported from four months onwards, with priority given to data at 12 months, as '12 months since surgery'), and unplanned return to theatre for treating a complication resulting directly or indirectly from the primary procedure (such as deep infection or non-union). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 76 studies (66 RCTs, 10 quasi-RCTs) with a total of 10,979 participants with 10,988 extracapsular hip fractures. The mean ages of participants in the studies ranged from 54 to 85 years; 72% were women. Seventeen studies included unstable trochanteric fractures; three included stable trochanteric fractures only; one included only subtrochanteric fractures; and other studies included a mix of fracture types. More than half of the studies were conducted before 2010. Owing to limitations in the quality of reporting, we could not easily judge whether care pathways in these older studies were comparable to current standards of care.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the outcomes because of high or unclear risk of bias; imprecision (when data were available from insufficient numbers of participants or the confidence interval (CI) was wide); and inconsistency (when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity or differences between findings when outcomes were reported using other measurement tools).\nThere is probably little or no difference between cephalomedullary nails and extramedullary implants in terms of mortality within four months of surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; 30 studies, 4603 participants) and at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; 47 studies, 7618 participants); this evidence was assessed to be of moderate certainty. We found low-certainty evidence for differences in unplanned return to theatre but this was imprecise and included clinically relevant benefits and harms (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 50 studies, 8398 participants). The effect estimate for functional status at four months also included clinically relevant benefits and harms; this evidence was derived from only two small studies and was imprecise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.30; 188 participants; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the estimate for delirium was imprecise (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.22; 5 studies, 1310 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mobility at four months was reported using different measures (such as the number of people with independent mobility or scores on a mobility scale); findings were not consistent between these measures and we could not be certain of the evidence for this outcome. We were also uncertain of the findings for performance in ADL at four months; we did not pool the data from four studies because of substantial heterogeneity. We found no data for health-related quality of life at four months.\nUsing a cephalomedullary nail in preference to an extramedullary device saves one superficial infection per 303 patients (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 35 studies, 5087 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and leads to fewer non-unions (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.96; 40 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the risk of intraoperative implant-related fractures was greater with cephalomedullary nails (RR 2.94, 95% CI 1.65 to 5.24; 35 studies, 4872 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), as was the risk of later fractures (RR 3.62, 95% CI 2.07 to 6.33; 46 studies, 7021 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Cephalomedullary nails caused one additional implant-related fracture per 67 participants. We noted no evidence of a difference in other adverse events related or unrelated to the implant, fracture or both.\nSubgroup analyses provided no evidence of differences between the length of cephalomedullary nail used, the stability of the fracture, or between newer and older designs of cephalomedullary nail.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExtramedullary devices, most commonly the sliding hip screw, yield very similar functional outcomes to cephalomedullary devices in the management of extracapsular fragility hip fractures. There is a reduced risk of infection and non-union with cephalomedullary nails, however there is an increased risk of implant-related fracture that is not attenuated with newer designs. Few studies considered patient-relevant outcomes such as performance of activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, mobility, or delirium. This emphasises the need to include the core outcome set for hip fracture in future RCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Are we confident in what we found?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- We are moderately confident in the findings about how many people die after surgery. A large number of studies reported this, and the findings were often similar.\n- We were less confident about the evidence for delirium, hip function, and additional operations. These findings included the possibility of a benefit with one of the treatments (for example, fewer operations) as well as the possibility of harm (for example, more operations).\n- We were very unsure about the findings for how well people could perform their daily activities. This was because we could not explain the wide differences between findings in each study.\n- We were unsure about the findings for health-related quality of life because we could not account for the number of participants lost during study follow-up.\n- We were also unsure about the findings for a person's ability to walk independently four months after surgery. This was because studies measured walking ability in different ways, and they sometimes had different findings.\nAll the evidence that we found included at least some studies that had not clearly reported methods used to randomise participants (i.e. to allocate them by chance) to one of the two types of implants. These studies, with less rigorous study designs, might affect our findings."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23658
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHealthcare workers are at risk of acquiring viral diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV through exposure to contaminated blood and body fluids at work. Most often infection occurs when a healthcare worker inadvertently punctures the skin of their hand with a sharp implement that has been used in the treatment of an infected patient, thus bringing the patient's blood into contact with their own. Such occurrences are commonly known as percutaneous exposure incidents.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of extra gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents among healthcare workers versus no intervention or alternative interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC, CISDOC, PsycINFO and LILACS until 26 June 2013.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthcare workers as the majority of participants, extra gloves or special types of gloves as the intervention, and exposure to blood or bodily fluids as the outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses for seven different comparisons.\nMain results\nWe found 34 RCTs that included 6890 person-operations as participating units and reported on 46 intervention-control group comparisons. We grouped interventions as follows: increased layers of standard gloves, gloves manufactured with special protective materials or thicker gloves, and gloves with puncture indicator systems. Indicator gloves show a coloured spot when they are perforated. Participants were surgeons in all studies and they used at least one pair of standard gloves as the control intervention. Twenty-seven studies also included other surgical staff (e.g. nurses). All but one study used perforations in gloves as an indication of exposure. The median control group rate was 18.5 perforations per 100 person-operations. Seven studies reported blood stains on the skin and two studies reported self reported needlestick injuries. Six studies reported dexterity as visual analogue scale scores for the comparison double versus single gloves, 13 studies reported outer glove perforations. We judged the included studies to have a moderate to high risk of bias.\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that double gloves compared to single gloves reduce the risk of glove perforation (rate ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.37) and the risk of blood stains on the skin (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70). Two studies with a high risk of bias also reported the effect of double compared to single gloves on needlestick injuries (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.62).\nWe found low-quality evidence in one small study that the use of three gloves compared to two gloves reduces the risk of perforation further (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.52). There was similar low-quality evidence that the use of one fabric glove over one normal glove reduces perforations compared to two normal gloves (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93). There was moderate-quality evidence that this effect was similar for the use of one special material glove between two normal material gloves. Thicker gloves did not perform better than thinner gloves.\nThere was moderate to low-quality evidence in two studies that an indicator system does not reduce the total number of perforations during an operation even though it reduces the number of perforations per glove used.\nThere was moderate-quality evidence that double gloves have a similar number of outer glove perforations as single gloves, indicating that there is no loss of dexterity with double gloves (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.31).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that double gloving compared to single gloving during surgery reduces perforations and blood stains on the skin, indicating a decrease in percutaneous exposure incidents. There is low-quality evidence that triple gloving and the use of special gloves can further reduce the risk of glove perforations compared to double gloving with normal material gloves. The preventive effect of double gloves on percutaneous exposure incidents in surgery does not need further research. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of special material gloves and triple gloves, and of gloves in other occupational groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"A pair of thicker or special gloves compared to a pair of ordinary gloves\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Five low-quality studies showed that the number of perforations was similar for thicker and thinner gloves. In two low-quality studies, the use of one pair of fabric gloves over one pair of normal gloves reduced perforations compared to two pairs of normal gloves. This was similar for gloves made from special material such as fabric or steel, used in between normal gloves."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23659
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany studies have recently been conducted to assess the antidepressant efficacy of glutamate modification in mood disorders. This is an update of a review first published in 2015 focusing on the use of glutamate receptor modulators in unipolar depression.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects - and review the acceptability and tolerability - of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression in people with unipolar major depressive disorder.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO all years to July 2020. We did not apply any restrictions to date, language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nDouble- or single-blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ketamine, memantine, esketamine or other glutamate receptor modulators with placebo (pill or saline infusion), other active psychotropic drugs, or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in adults with unipolar major depression.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently identified studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were response rate (50% reduction on a standardised rating scale) and adverse events. We decided a priori to measure the efficacy outcomes at different time points and run sensitivity/subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nThirty-one new studies were identified for inclusion in this updated review. Overall, we included 64 studies (5299 participants) on ketamine (31 trials), esketamine (9), memantine (5), lanicemine (4), D-cycloserine (2), Org26576 (2), riluzole (2), atomoxetine (1), basimglurant (1), citicoline (1), CP-101,606 (1), decoglurant (1), MK-0657 (1), N-acetylcysteine (1), rapastinel (1), and sarcosine (1).\nForty-eight studies were placebo-controlled, and 48 were two-arm studies. The majority of trials defined an inclusion criterion for the severity of depressive symptoms at baseline: 29 at least moderate depression; 17 severe depression; and five mild-to-moderate depression. Nineteen studies recruited only patients with treatment-resistant depression, defined as inadequate response to at least two antidepressants.\nThe majority of studies investigating ketamine administered as a single dose, whilst all of the included esketamine studies used a multiple dose regimen (most frequently twice a week for four weeks). Most studies looking at ketamine used intravenous administration, whilst the majority of esketamine trials used intranasal routes.\nThe evidence suggests that ketamine may result in an increase in response and remission compared with placebo at 24 hours odds ratio (OR) 3.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54 to 10.10; n = 185, studies = 7, very low-certainty evidence). Ketamine may reduce depression rating scale scores over placebo at 24 hours, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.87, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.48; n = 231, studies = 8, very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants assigned to ketamine or placebo who dropped out for any reason (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.28; n = 201, studies = 6, very low-certainty evidence).\nWhen compared with midazolam, the evidence showed that ketamine increases remission rates at 24 hours (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.32; n = 122,studies = 2, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the response efficacy of ketamine at 24 hours in comparison with midazolam, and its ability to reduce depression rating scale scores at the same time point (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.18; n = 296, studies = 4,very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who dropped out of studies for any reason between ketamine and midazolam (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.09; n = 72, studies = 1, low-certainty evidence).\nEsketamine treatment likely results in a large increase in participants achieving remission at 24 hours compared with placebo (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.40; n = 894, studies = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). Esketamine probably results in decreases in depression rating scale scores at 24 hours compared with placebo (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.17; n = 824, studies = 4, moderate-certainty evidence). Our findings show that esketamine increased response rates, although this evidence is uncertain (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.68; n = 1071, studies = 5, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence that participants assigned to esketamine treatment dropped out of trials more frequently than those assigned to placebo for any reason (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.73; n = 773, studies = 4,moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe found very little evidence for the remaining glutamate receptor modulators.\nWe rated the risk of bias as low or unclear for most domains, though lack of detail regarding masking of treatment in the studies reduced our certainty in the effect for all outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur findings show that ketamine and esketamine may be more efficacious than placebo at 24 hours. How these findings translate into clinical practice, however, is not entirely clear. The evidence for use of the remaining glutamate receptor modulators is limited as very few trials were included in the meta-analyses for each comparison and the majority of comparisons included only one study.\nLong term non-inferiority RCTs comparing repeated ketamine and esketamine, and rigorous real-world monitoring are needed to establish comprehensive data on safety and efficacy.\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": "Depression is one of the most common mental disorders, estimated to affect 350 million people worldwide. Antidepressant medication tends to be given as a first treatment for people with major depression. These drugs are however only effective in about one in four people at one year. Effective alternative medications to treat depression are needed, especially for rapid treatment. A new group of medications is called ‘glutamate receptor modulators’, which act on the glutamergic system. This group includes the medicine ketamine. In this review we examined the evidence for glutamate receptor modulators, including ketamine, as a treatment for depression."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23660
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExtensive evidence exists showing analgesic effects of sweet solutions for newborns and infants. It is less certain if the same analgesic effects exist for children one year to 16 years of age. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2011 (Harrison 2011) titled Sweet tasting solutions for reduction of needle-related procedural pain in children aged one to 16 years.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of sweet tasting solutions or substances for reducing needle-related procedural pain in children beyond one year of age.\nSearch methods\nSearches were run to the end of June 2014. We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ACP Journal Club (all via OvidSP), and CINAH (via EBSCOhost). We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nPublished or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCT) in which children aged one year to 16 years, received a sweet tasting solution or substance for needle-related procedural pain. Control conditions included water, non-sweet tasting substances, pacifier, distraction, positioning/containment, breastfeeding, or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nOutcome measures included crying duration, composite pain scores, physiological or behavioral pain indicators, self-report of pain or parental or healthcare professional-report of the child's pain. We reported mean differences (MD), weighted mean difference (WMD), or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect or random-effects models as appropriate for continuous outcome measures. We reported risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) for dichotomous outcomes. We used the I2 statistic to assess between-study heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included one unpublished and seven published studies (total of 808 participants); four more studies and 478 more participants than the 2011 review. Six trials included young children aged one to four years receiving sucrose or candy lollypops for immunisation pain compared with water or no treatment. Usual care included topical anaesthetics, upright parental holding, and distraction. All studies were well designed blinded RCTs, however, five of the six studies had a high risk of bias based on small sample sizes.\nTwo studies included school-aged children receiving sweet or unsweetened chewing gum before, or before and during, immunisation and blood collection. Both studies, conducted by the same author, had a high risk of bias based on small sample sizes.\nResults for the toddlers/pre-school children were conflicting. Duration of cry, using a random-effects model, was not significantly reduced by sweet taste (six trials, 520 children, WMD -15 seconds, 95% CI -54 to 24, I2 = 94%).\nComposite pain score at time of first needle was reported in four studies (n = 121 children). The scores were not significantly different between the sucrose and control group (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.75, I2 = 86%).\nA Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale score > 4 was significantly less common in the sucrose group compared to the control group in one study (n = 472, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.67; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 5; tests for heterogeneity not applicable.\nFor school-aged children, chewing sweet gum before needle-related painful procedures (two studies, n = 111 children) or during the procedures (two studies, n = 103 children) did not significantly reduce pain scores. A comparison of the Faces Pain Scale scores in children chewing sweet gum before the procedures compared with scores of children chewing unsweetened gum revealed a WMD of -0.15 (95% CI -0.61 to 0.30). Similar results were found when comparing the chewing of sweet gum with unsweetened gum during the procedure (WMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.74). The Colored Analogue Scale for children chewing sweet gum compared to unsweetened gum before the procedure was not significantly different (WMD 0.24 (-0.69 to 1.18)) nor was it different when children chewed the gum during the procedure (WMD 0.86 (95% CI -0.12 to 1.83)). There was no heterogeneity for any of these analyses in school-aged children (I2 = 0%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the eight studies included in this systematic review update, two of which were subgroups of small numbers of eligible toddlers from larger studies, and three of which were pilot RCTs with small numbers of participants, there is insufficient evidence of the analgesic effects of sweet tasting solutions or substances during acutely painful procedures in young children between one and four years of age. Further rigorously conducted, adequately powered RCTs are warranted in this population. Based on the two studies by the same author, there was no evidence of analgesic effects of sweet taste in school-aged children. As there are other effective evidence-based strategies available to use in this age group, further trials are not warranted.\nDespite the addition of four studies in this review, conclusions have not changed since the last version of the review.\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 six studies focused on young children aged one to four years; two of these studies were included in the original review and four were new studies. The two studies included in the original review used a low concentration of sucrose, just 12%, which is not considered sweet enough for the pain reducing effects. Three of the four new studies were small pilot studies, conducted to inform full trials, and only one study of sweet solutions in young children included large numbers of children. When we compared results of all six studies, only two showed that sugar water (sucrose) reduced pain during injections. However, the four studies that showed no effect all included small numbers of children, therefore they were not considered large enough to detect significant differences in pain. Further well conducted trials with large enough numbers of young children are needed to work out if sweet taste effectively reduces their pain and distress during needles.\nFor older school-aged children, there were two studies published by the same author, both of which were included in the original review. Neither study showed that sweet taste helped to reduce pain. As other studies show that strategies such as distraction and topical anaesthetics can effectively reduce needle pain in school-aged children, further studies of sweet taste for pain management in school-aged children are not warranted."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23661
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nApproximately 13% of women diagnosed with endometrial cancer present with advanced stage disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV). The standard treatment of advanced endometrial cancer consists of cytoreductive surgery followed by radiation therapy, or chemotherapy, or both. There is currently little agreement about which adjuvant treatment is the safest and most effective.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy or chemoradiation, and to determine which chemotherapy agents are most effective in women presenting with advanced endometrial cancer (FIGO stage III/IV).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Collaborative Review Group's Trial Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 10 2013), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to November 2013. Also we searched electronic clinical trial registries for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy or chemoradiation in women with FIGO stage III and IV endometrial cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors selected trials, extracted data, and assessed trials for risk of bias. Where necessary, we contacted trial investigators for relevant, unpublished data. We pooled data using the random-effects model in Review Manager (RevMan) software.\nMain results\nWe included four multicentre RCTs involving 1269 women with primary FIGO stage III/IV endometrial cancer. We considered the trials to be at low to moderate risk of bias. All participants received primary cytoreductive surgery. Two trials, evaluating 620 women (83% stage III, 17% stage IV), compared adjuvant chemotherapy with adjuvant radiotherapy; one trial evaluating 552 women (88% stage III, 12% stage IV) compared two chemotherapy regimens (cisplatin/doxorubicin/paclitaxel (CDP) versus cisplatin/doxorubicin (CD) treatment) in women who had all undergone adjuvant radiotherapy; and one trial contributed no data.\nOverall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was longer with adjuvant chemotherapy compared with adjuvant radiotherapy (OS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.99, I² = 22%; and PFS: HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92, I² = 0%). Sensitivity analysis using adjusted and unadjusted OS data, gave similar results. In subgroup analyses, the effects on survival in favour of chemotherapy were not different for stage III and IV, or stage IIIA and IIIC (tests for subgroup differences were not significant and I² = 0%). This evidence was of moderate quality. Data from one trial showed that women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to experience haematological and neurological adverse events and alopecia, and more likely to discontinue treatment (33/194 versus 6/202; RR 5.73, 95% CI 2.45 to 13.36), than those receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment-related deaths between the chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment arms (8/309 versus 5/311; Risk Ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.00).\nThere was no clear difference in PFS between intervention groups in the one trial that compared CDP versus CD (552 women; HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.17). We considered this evidence to be of moderate quality. Mature OS data from this trial were not yet available. Severe haematological and neurological adverse events occurred more frequently with CDP than CD.\nWe found no trials to include of adjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiation in advanced endometrial cancer; however we identified one ongoing trial of this comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate quality evidence that chemotherapy increases survival time after primary surgery by approximately 25% relative to radiotherapy in stage III and IV endometrial cancer. There is limited evidence that it is associated with more adverse effects. There is some uncertainty as to whether triplet regimens offer similar survival benefits over doublet regimens in the long-term. Further research is needed to determine which chemotherapy regimen(s) are the most effective and least toxic, and whether the addition of radiotherapy further improves outcomes. A large trial evaluating the benefits and risks of adjuvant chemoradiation versus chemotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer is ongoing.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How was the review conducted?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the literature from 1966 to November 2013 for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included four RCTs which were at low to moderate risk of bias and involved 1269 women. We wrote to the investigators of three trials for unpublished data. Three of the four trials compared similar interventions (chemotherapy versus radiotherapy after surgery). We pooled survival data (including the unpublished data) from two trials and await unpublished data for the third trial. The fourth trial compared two types of chemotherapy treatments after all women had received surgery and radiotherapy."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23662
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nObstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep. Classical symptoms of the disease — such as snoring, unsatisfactory rest and daytime sleepiness — are experienced mainly by men; women report more unspecific symptoms such as low energy or fatigue, tiredness, initial insomnia and morning headaches. OSA is associated with an increased risk of occupational injuries, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, mortality, and being involved in traffic accidents.\nContinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) - delivered by a machine which uses a hose and mask or nosepiece to deliver constant and steady air pressure- is considered the first treatment option for most people with OSA. However, adherence to treatment is often suboptimal. Myofunctional therapy could be an alternative for many patients. Myofunctional therapy consists of combinations of oropharyngeal exercises - i.e. mouth and throat exercises. These combinations typically include both isotonic and isometric exercises involving several muscles and areas of the mouth, pharynx and upper respiratory tract, to work on functions such as speaking, breathing, blowing, sucking, chewing and swallowing.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of myofunctional therapy (oropharyngeal exercises) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 1 May 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs that recruited adults and children with a diagnosis of OSA.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were daytime sleepiness, morbidity and mortality.\nMain results\nWe found nine studies eligible for inclusion in this review and nine ongoing studies. The nine included RCTs analysed a total of 347 participants, 69 of them women and 13 children. The adults' mean ages ranged from 46 to 51, daytime sleepiness scores from eight to 14, and severity of the condition from mild to severe OSA. The studies' duration ranged from two to four months.\nNone of the studies assessed accidents, cardiovascular diseases or mortality outcomes. We sought data about adverse events, but none of the included studies reported these.\nIn adults, compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy: probably reduces daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), MD (mean difference) -4.52 points, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -6.67 to -2.36; two studies, 82 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may increase sleep quality (MD -3.90 points, 95% CI -6.31 to -1.49; one study, 31 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in a large reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI, MD -13.20 points, 95% CI -18.48 to -7.93; two studies, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence); may have little to no effect in reduction of snoring frequency but the evidence is very uncertain (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) -0.53 points, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.03; two studies, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and probably reduces subjective snoring intensity slightly (MD -1.9 points, 95% CI -3.69 to -0.11 one study, 51 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nCompared to waiting list, myofunctional therapy may: reduce daytime sleepiness (ESS, change from baseline MD -3.00 points, 95% CI -5.47 to -0.53; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); result in little to no difference in sleep quality (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.61; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); and reduce AHI (MD -6.20 points, 95% CI -11.94 to -0.46; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to CPAP, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.30 points, 95% CI -1.65 to 2.25; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence); and may increase AHI (MD 9.60 points, 95% CI 2.46 to 16.74; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to CPAP plus myofunctional therapy, myofunctional therapy alone may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.56 to 2.96; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase AHI (MD 10.50 points, 95% CI 3.43 to 17.57; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to respiratory exercises plus nasal dilator strip, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.46 to 2.86; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably increases sleep quality slightly (-1.94 points, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.72; two studies, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD -3.80 points, 95% CI -9.05 to 1.45; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to standard medical treatment, myofunctional therapy may reduce daytime sleepiness (MD -6.40 points, 95% CI -9.82 to -2.98; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase sleep quality (MD -3.10 points, 95% CI -5.12 to -1.08; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIn children, compared to nasal washing alone, myofunctional therapy and nasal washing may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD 3.00, 95% CI -0.26 to 6.26; one study, 13 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy probably reduces daytime sleepiness and may increase sleep quality in the short term. The certainty of the evidence for all comparisons ranges from moderate to very low, mainly due to lack of blinding of the assessors of subjective outcomes, incomplete outcome data and imprecision. More studies are needed. In future studies, outcome assessors should be blinded. New trials should recruit more participants, including more women and children, and have longer treatment and follow-up periods.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found nine RCT studies that analysed a total of 347 participants, 69 of them women, and 13 children.\nIn adults, compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy probably reduces daytime sleepiness, may increase sleep quality, may result in a large reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (the number of apneas or hypopnoeas recorded during the polysomnography study per hour of sleep), may have little to no effect in reduction of snoring frequency and probably reduces subjective snoring intensity slightly.\nCompared to waiting list, myofunctional therapy may reduce daytime sleepiness, may result in little to no difference in sleep quality and may reduce AHI.\nCompared to CPAP, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness and may increase AHI.\nCompared to CPAP plus myofunctional therapy, myofunctional therapy alone may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness and may increase AHI.\nCompared to respiratory exercises plus nasal dilator strip, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness, probably increases sleep quality slightly and may result in little to no difference in AHI.\nCompared to standard medical treatment, myofunctional therapy may reduce daytime sleepiness and may increase sleep quality.\nIn children, compared to nasal washing alone, adding myofunctional therapy to nasal washing may result in little to no difference in AHI."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23663
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.\nSearch methods\nIn this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes.\nMain results\nOf a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials.\nThere was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I2=40%).\nThere was little or no difference in postoperative mortality (risk difference (RD) -0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; eight trials, 818 participants, high-certainty evidence); postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.40; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence); postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59; six trials, 742 participants, low-certainty evidence); intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; seven trials, 788 participants, low-certainty evidence); bile leakage (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.91; seven trials, 606 participants, low-certainty evidence); reoperation rate (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.36; five trials, 682 participants, low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (MD -0.21; 95% CI -1.41 to 0.99; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nOnly one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of 73 participants, also without a relevant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, due to some degree of heterogeneity, inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The pancreas is a digestive gland situated in the upper abdomen, which is also vital to normal control of blood sugar. Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death in industrialised nations. The standard surgical treatment for cancer of the head of the gland and precancerous abnormalities is partial removal of the pancreas, together with the attached duodenum, known as a pancreaticoduodenectomy. Removal of the duodenum requires the restoration of the digestive pathway from the stomach to the rest of the gut. This can be accomplished by joining it to the jejunum (second part of the small intestine) either in front of (antecolic) or behind (retrocolic) the overlying large intestine (transverse colon)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23664
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPelvic inflammatory disease (PID) affects 4% to 12% of women of reproductive age. The main intervention for acute PID is broad-spectrum antibiotics administered intravenously, intramuscularly or orally. We assessed the optimal treatment regimen for PID.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic regimens to treat PID.\nSearch methods\nIn January 2020, we searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Review Group's Specialized Register, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1944 to 2020, located through hand and electronic searching; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; four other databases; and abstracts in selected publications.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing antibiotics with placebo or other antibiotics for the treatment of PID in women of reproductive age, either as inpatient or outpatient treatment. We limited our review to a comparison of drugs in current use that are recommended by the 2015 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for treatment of PID.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 39 RCTs (6894 women) in this review, adding two new RCTs at this update. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to high, the main limitations being serious risk of bias (due to poor reporting of study methods and lack of blinding), serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision.\nNone of the studies reported quinolones and cephalosporins, or the outcomes laparoscopic evidence of resolution of PID based on physician opinion or fertility outcomes. Length of stay results were insufficiently reported for analysis.\nRegimens containing azithromycin versus regimens containing doxycycline\nWe are uncertain whether there was a clinically relevant difference between azithromycin and doxycycline in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.55; 2 RCTs, 243 women; I2 = 72%; very low-quality evidence). The analyses may result in little or no difference between azithromycin and doxycycline in rates of severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 309 women; low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.34; 3 RCTs, 552 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to a single study at low risk of bias, azithromycin probably improves the rates of cure in mild-moderate PID (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.67; 133 women; moderate-quality evidence), compared to doxycycline.\nRegimens containing quinolone versus regimens containing cephalosporin\nThe analysis shows there may be little or no clinically relevant difference between quinolones and cephalosporins in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 772 women; I2 = 15%; low-quality evidence), or severe PID (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23; 2 RCTs, 313 women; I2 = 7%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there was a difference between quinolones and cephalosporins in adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.72; 6 RCTs, 1085 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence).\nRegimens with nitroimidazole versus regimens without nitroimidazole\nThere was probably little or no difference between regimens with or without nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; 6 RCTs, 2660 women; I2 = 50%; moderate-quality evidence), or severe PID (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; 11 RCTs, 1383 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that there was little to no difference in in adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.61; 17 studies, 4021 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). . In a sensitivity analysis limited to studies at low risk of bias, there was little or no difference for rates of cure in mild-moderate PID (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 1434 women; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence).\nRegimens containing clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus quinolone\nWe are uncertain whether quinolone have little to no effect in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID compared to clindamycin plus aminoglycoside (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 25 women; very low-quality evidence). The analysis may result in little or no difference between quinolone vs. clindamycin plus aminoglycoside in severe PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19; 2 studies, 151 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether quinolone reduces adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.72; 3 RCTs, 163 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence).\nRegimens containing clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus regimens containing cephalosporin\nWe are uncertain whether clindamycin plus aminoglycoside improves the rates of cure for mild-moderate PID compared to cephalosporin (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 150 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). There was probably little or no difference in rates of cure in severe PID with clindamycin plus aminoglycoside compared to cephalosporin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 10 RCTs, 959 women; I2= 21%; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether clindamycin plus aminoglycoside reduces adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment compared to cephalosporin (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.42; 10 RCTs, 1172 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether one treatment was safer or more effective than any other for the cure of mild-moderate or severe PID\nBased on a single study at a low risk of bias, a macrolide (azithromycin) probably improves the rates of cure of mild-moderate PID, compared to tetracycline (doxycycline).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Studies characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the available literature up to 10 January 2020 and included 39 studies with 6894 women with an average of 14 days of treatment and follow-up (monitoring after treatment). These trials included women of childbearing age with mild to severe PID. Trials mostly used a single or a combination of antibiotics with different administration routes: intravenous (into a blood vessel), intramuscular (into the muscle), and oral (as a tablet). In mild-moderate cases, intramuscular and oral treatments were prescribed, and in moderate-severe cases, treatments were usually started in hospital and were completed at home."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23665
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCrohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract, and immune response modulation is the main treatment strategy to induce remission in active CD. Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is a tumor necrosis factor-alfa (TNF-α) inhibitor which regulates impaired immune response.\nObjectives\nThe primary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CZP for the induction of remission in CD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD group specialized register, trials registers and other sources from inception to 28 January 2019. Moreover, we contacted the pharmaceutical company that manufactures CZP.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials comparing CZP with placebo or no treatment in active CD patients.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The main outcomes selected for GRADE analysis were clinical remission at week 8 (Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤150), clinical response at week 8 (CDAI reduction ≥ 100 or clinical remission), and serious adverse events. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method was applied for the statistical analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI).\nMain results\nFour studies involving 1485 participants with moderate to severe CD met the inclusion criteria and were used in the meta-analyses. All studies included active CD patients with CDAI ranging from 220 to 450. Most patients were adults over 18 years of age. One study was identified as high risk of bias due to a non-identical placebo while the other studies were judged to be at low risk of bias.\nCZP (100 mg to 400 mg every 2 to 4 weeks) was shown to be superior to placebo for achieving clinical remission at week 8 (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.66; moderate certainty evidence). The raw numbers of participants achieving clinical remission at week 8 were 26.9% (225/835) and 19.8% (129/650) in the CZP and the placebo groups, respectively.\nCZP was shown to be superior to placebo for achieving clinical response at week 8 (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.53; moderate certainty evidence). In raw numbers, clinical response at week 8 was achieved in 40.2% (336/835) and 30.9% (201/650) of participants in the CZP and the placebo groups, respectively.\nIn raw numbers, serious adverse events were observed in 8.7% (73/835) and 6.2% (40/650) of participants in the CZP and the placebo groups, respectively (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.97; moderate certainty evidence). Serious adverse events included worsening Crohn's disease, infections, and malignancy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate certainty evidence suggests that CZP is effective for induction of clinical remission and clinical response in participants with active CD patients. It is uncertain whether the risk of serious adverse events differs between CZP and placebo as the 95% CI includes the possibility of a small decrease or doubling of events. Future studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of CZP in CD patients.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The literature was searched up to 28 January 2019. Four studies involving 1485 patients compared certolizumab pegol with placebo (a dummy drug). All studies included patients with active Crohn’s disease. Most patients were adults over 18 years of age, except for six patients aged 16 or 17 years old. All studies were funded by the drug manufacturer."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23666
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nParents and carers have a major influence on children's learning and development from birth, through the school years, and into adulthood. Parental contributions to education include providing a secure environment in which to learn, providing intellectual stimulation, transmitting social norms and values, shaping the child’s resilience through fostering literacy and problem-solving, and encouraging personal and social aspiration. Increasingly, providers of formalised education are recognising the primary role of parents, carers, and the wider family, as well as peers and the environment, in shaping children's education, health, and life experiences.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of the Families and Schools Together (FAST) programme in improving outcomes among children and their families.\nSearch methods\nBetween October 2018 and December 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 11 additional databases, and three trial registers. We handsearched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reports and reviews, contacted the programme developer and independent researchers, and searched relevant websites to identify other eligible studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of FAST, relative to waiting list, usual or alternative services, or no intervention, on outcomes for children (aged from birth to completion of compulsory education) and their families.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently evaluated the records retrieved from the search for relevance. One review author (JV) extracted data from eligible studies with a second independent review author (AF, DK, or SL). Review authors consulted with one another to resolve disagreements. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis. We presented results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) because all outcomes were continuously scaled, and we accompanied these with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified 10 completed RCTs, most of which were relatively recent (2007 or later) and were conducted with at least some involvement from the intervention developer or the FAST organisation. Nine of the 10 trials were from the USA; the other was from the UK. Children were young (five to nine years old; mean age approximately six years), and therefore, whilst not so named in the reports, evaluations consisted of what is sometimes referred to as 'Kids FAST' and sometimes 'Elementary Level FAST'). Among the USA-based studies, at least 62% of participants were members of a racial/ethnic minority group (most commonly, African American or Latino). FAST was usually delivered in schools after the school day. Trials lasted about eight weeks and usually examined the effects of FAST relative to no additional intervention. Most studies were funded by agencies in the US federal government. We judged the certainty of evidence in the included studies to be moderate or low for the main review outcomes. Failure to include all families in outcome analyses (attrition) and possible bias in recruitment of families into the trials were the main limitations in the evidence.\nWe included over 9000 children and their families in at least one meta-analysis. The follow results relate to meta-analyses of data at long-term follow-up.\nPrimary outcomes\nFour studies (approximately 6276 children) assessed child school performance at long-term follow-up. The effect size was very small, and the CI did not include effects that, if real, suggest possibly important positive or negative effects if viewed from an individual perspective (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.08). We assessed the certainty of evidence for this outcome as moderate. No studies assessed child adverse events, parental substance use, or parental stress.\nSecondary outcomes\nParent reports of child internalising behaviour (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.17; 4 RCTs, approximately 908 children; low-certainty evidence) and family relationships (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.19; 4 RCTs, approximately 2569 children; moderate-certainty evidence) also yielded CIs that did not include effects that, if real, suggest possibly important positive or negative effects.\nThe CI for parent reports of child externalising behaviour, however, did include effects that, if real, were possibly large enough to be important (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.05; 4 RCTs, approximately 754 children; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven these results, it is hard to support the assertion that assignment to FAST is associated with important positive outcomes for children and their parents.\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 studies (studies where schools were assigned to receive FAST or to continue as usual, by a procedure similar to tossing a coin), with a total of more than 9000 children and their families.\nNine of the studies took place in the USA and were funded by agencies in the US federal government. One study took place in the UK. Children's ages ranged from five to nine years, and most of the USA-based children were members of a racial or ethnic minority group. Boys and girls were represented at approximately equal rates. In most studies, FAST was delivered at children's schools after the end of the school day, although in some studies it was delivered outside of school (e.g. at a community centre). The trials lasted about eight weeks and usually examined the effects of FAST compared to no additional intervention. The evidence is current as of December 2018."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23667
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAssisted reproduction techniques (ART), such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), can help subfertile couples to create a family. It is necessary to induce multiple follicles, which is achieved by follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) injections. Current treatment regimens prescribe daily injections of FSH (urinary FSH either with or without luteinizing hormone (LH) injections or recombinant FSH (rFSH)).\nRecombinant DNA technologies have produced a new recombinant molecule which is a long-acting FSH, named corifollitropin alfa (Elonva) or FSH-CTP. A single dose of long-acting FSH is able to keep the circulating FSH level above the threshold necessary to support multi-follicular growth for an entire week. The optimal dose of long-acting FSH is still being determined. A single injection of long-acting FSH can replace seven daily FSH injections during the first week of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and can make assisted reproduction more patient friendly.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness of long-acting FSH versus daily FSH in terms of pregnancy and safety outcomes in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases, trial registers and websites from inception to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, electronic trial registers for ongoing and registered trials, citation indexes, conference abstracts in the ISI Web of Knowledge, LILACS, Clinical Study Results (for clinical trial results of marketed pharmaceuticals), PubMed and OpenSIGLE. We also carried out handsearches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-acting FSH versus daily FSH in women who were part of a couple with subfertility and undertaking IVF or ICSI treatment cycles with a GnRH antagonist or agonist protocol.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We contacted trial authors in cases of missing data. We calculated risk ratios for each outcome, and our primary outcomes were live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. Our secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, any other adverse event (including ectopic pregnancy, congenital malformations, drug side effects and infection) and patient satisfaction with the treatment. Trials reported all outcomes, except patient satisfaction with the treatment.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs with a total of 3753 participants and we graded the quality of the included studies as moderate. All studies included women with an indication for COS as part of an IVF/ICSI cycle with age ranging from 18 to 41 years. A comparison of long-acting FSH versus daily FSH did not show evidence of difference in effect on overall live birth rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.07; 2363 participants, five studies; I² statistic = 44%) or OHSS (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.37; 3753 participants, six studies; I² statistic = 0%). We compared subgroups by dose of long-acting FSH. There was evidence of a reduced live birth rate in women who received lower doses (60 to 120 μg) of long-acting FSH compared to daily FSH (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.93; 645 participants, three studies; I² statistic = 0%). There was no evidence a difference between the groups in live births in the medium dose (150 to 180 μg) subgroup (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 1685 participants, four studies; I² statistic = 6%). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the clinical pregnancy rate (any dose), ongoing pregnancy rate (any dose), multiple pregnancy rate (any dose), miscarriage rate (low or medium dose), ectopic pregnancy rate (any dose), congenital malformation rate, congenital malformation rate; major or minor (low or medium dose).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe use of a medium dose (150 to 180 μg) of long-acting FSH is a safe treatment option and equally effective compared to daily FSH in women with unexplained subfertility. There was evidence of reduced live birth rate in women receiving a low dose (60 to 120 μg) of long-acting FSH compared to daily FSH. Further research is needed to determine whether long-acting FSH is safe and effective for use in hyper- or poor responders and in women with all causes of subfertility.\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": ""
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23668
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF versus expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins, clomiphene citrate (CC), or letrozole in improving pregnancy outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched following databases from inception to November 2021, with no language restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL. We searched reference lists of articles and conference abstracts.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness of IVF for unexplained subfertility with expectant management, unstimulated IUI, and stimulated IUI.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods.\nMain results\nIVF versus expectant management (two RCTs)\nWe are uncertain whether IVF improves live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37; 1 RCT; 51 women; very low-quality evidence; OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 9.8; 2 RCTs; 86 women; I2 = 80%; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported. Assuming 4% LBR and 12% CPR with expectant management, these would be 8.8% to 9% and 13% to 58% with IVF.\nIVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs)\nIVF may improve LBR compared to unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12; 2 RCTs; 156 women; I2 = 60%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between IVF and IUI for multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rate (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 21.25; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence). No study reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming 16% LBR, 3% MPR, and 6% miscarriage rate with unstimulated IUI, these outcomes would be 18.5% to 49%, 0.1% to 46%, and 0.9% to 58% with IVF.\nIVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (6 RCTs), CC (1 RCT), or letrozole (no RCTs)\nStratified analysis was based on pretreatment status.\nTreatment-naive women\nThere may be little or no difference in LBR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.92; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 54%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 42% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 26% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), LBR would be 39% to 54% and 24% to 51% with IVF. Assuming 15% LBR with IUI + CC, LBR would be 15% to 54% with IVF.\nThere may be little or no difference in CPR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.86 to 11.35; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.51 to 8.49; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 48% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 17% with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), CPR would be 44% to 60% and 28% to 70% with IVF. Assuming 21% CPR with IUI + CC, CPR would be 29% to 69% with IVF.\nThere may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.41; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence).\nWe are uncertain if there is a difference in OHSS between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 6.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 134.59; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference in OHSS with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.16; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.57; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence).\nWe are uncertain if there is a difference in miscarriage rate between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.04; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.05; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence).\nIn women pretreated with IUI + CC\nIVF may improve LBR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 22% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins, LBR would be 39% to 65% with IVF.\nIVF may improve CPR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 14.13, 95% CI 7.57 to 26.38; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 30% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins, CPR would be 76% to 92% with IVF.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIVF may improve LBR over unstimulated IUI. Data should be interpreted with caution as overall evidence quality was low.\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 investigated whether IVF treatment leads to more live births than other treatments for unexplained subfertility."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23669
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlthough routine administration of pharmacologic sedation or analgesia during mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates is not recommended, its use in clinical practice remains common. Alpha-2 agonists, mainly clonidine and dexmedetomidine, are used as adjunctive (or alternative) sedative agents alongside opioids and benzodiazepines. Clonidine has not been systematically assessed for use in neonatal sedation during ventilation.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether clonidine administered to term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation reduces morbidity and mortality rates. To compare the intervention versus placebo, no treatment, and dexmedetomidine; and to assess the safety of clonidine infusion for potential harms.\nTo perform subgroup analyses according to gestational age; birth weight; administration method (infusion or bolus therapy); dose, duration, and route of clonidine administration; and pharmacologic sedation as a co-intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to January 10, 2017), Embase (1980 to January 10, 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to January 10, 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing clonidine versus placebo, no treatment, or dexmedetomidine administered to term and preterm newborns receiving mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube.\nData collection and analysis\nFor the included trial, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, duration of respiratory support, sedation scale, duration of hospital stay) and assessed risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). This review considered primary outcomes of all-cause neonatal death, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, and duration of mechanical ventilation in days.\nMain results\nOne trial, which included 112 infants, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Term newborn infants on mechanical ventilation with the need for continuous analgesia and sedation with fentanyl and midazolam were eligible for enrollment during the first 96 hours of ventilation. Study authors administered clonidine 1 μg/kg/h or placebo on day 4 after intubation.\nWe found no differences between the two groups in all-cause death during hospitalization (risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 3.98). The quality of the evidence supporting these findings is low owing to imprecision of the estimates (one study; few events). The median (interquartile range) duration of mechanical ventilation was 7.1 days (5.7 to 9.1 days) in the clonidine group and 5.8 days (4.9 to 7.9 days) in the placebo group, respectively (P = 0.070). Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of duration of stay in the intensive care unit. Sedation scale values (COMFORT) and analgesia scores (Hartwig) during the first 72 hours of infusion of study medication were lower in the clonidine group than in the placebo group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present, evidence is insufficient to show the efficacy and safety of clonidine for sedation and analgesia in term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation.\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": "Although routine pharmacologic sedation or analgesia during mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates is not recommended, its use in clinical practice remains common. Clonidine may be used as an adjunctive (or alternative) sedative agent alongside other opioids and benzodiazepines. This review reported and critically analyzed available evidence on the effectiveness of clonidine in term and preterm newborn infants on a ventilator."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23670
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe use of ultrasound guidance for regional anaesthesia has become popular over the past two decades. However, it is not recognized by all experts as an essential tool, perhaps because it is unclear whether ultrasound reduces the risk of severe neurological complications, and the cost of an ultrasound machine (USD 22,000) is substantially higher than the cost of other tools. This review was published in 2016 and updated in 2019.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether ultrasound guidance offers any clinical advantage when neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks are performed in children in terms of decreasing failure rate or the rate of complications.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers up to March 2018 together with reference checking to identify additional studies and contacted study authors to obtain additional trial information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all parallel randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of ultrasound guidance used when a regional blockade technique was performed in children. We included studies performed in children (≤ 18 years of age) undergoing any type of surgical procedure (open or laparoscopic), for which a neuraxial (spinal, epidural, caudal, or combined spinal and epidural) or peripheral nerve block (any peripheral nerve block including fascial (fascia iliaca, transversus abdominis plane, rectus sheath blocks) or perivascular blocks), for surgical anaesthesia (alone or in combination with general anaesthesia) or for postoperative analgesia, was performed with ultrasound guidance. We excluded studies in which regional blockade was used to treat chronic pain.\nWe included studies in which ultrasound guidance was used to perform the technique in real time (in-plane or out-of-plane), as pre-scanning before the procedure or to evaluate the spread of the local anaesthetic so the position of the needle could be adjusted or the block complemented. For control groups, any other technique used to perform the block including landmarks, loss of resistance (air or fluid), click, paraesthesia, nerve stimulator, transarterial, or infiltration was accepted.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were failed blocks, pain scores at one hour after surgery, and block duration. Secondary outcomes included time to perform the block, number of needle passes, and minor and major complications. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 33 trials with a total of 2293 participants from 0.9 to 12 (mean or median) years of age. Most trials were at low risk of selection, detection, attrition, and reporting bias, however the lack of blinding of participants and personnel caring for participants resulted in 25 trials being judged as at high or unclear risk of bias. We identified five ongoing trials.\nUltrasound guidance probably reduces the risk of failed block (risk difference (RD) −0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.25 to −0.07; 22 trials; 1789 participants; moderate-quality evidence). When ultrasound guidance was used, there was a small to moderate reduction in pain one hour after surgery, equivalent to a reduction of 1.3 points on the revised Bieri FACES pain scale (scale; 0 = no pain, 10 = maximal pain) (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.41, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.07 (medium effect size); 15 trials; 982 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Ultrasound guidance increases block duration by the equivalent of 42 minutes (SMD 1.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.75; 10 trials; 460 participants; high-quality evidence).\nThere is probably little or no difference in the time taken to perform the block (SMD −0.46, 95% CI −1.06 to 0.13; 9 trials; 680 participants; moderate-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether the number of needle passes required is reduced with the use of ultrasound guidance (SMD −0.63, 95% CI −1.08 to −0.18; 3 trials; 256 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nThere were no occurrences of major complications in either the intervention or control arms of the trials (cardiac arrest from local anaesthetic toxicity (22 trials; 1576 participants; moderate-quality evidence); lasting neurological injury (19 trials; 1250 participants; low-quality evidence)).\nThere may be little of no difference in the risk of bloody puncture (RD −0.02, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.00; 13 trials; 896 participants; low-quality evidence) or transient neurological injury (RD −0.00, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.01; 18 trials; 1230 participants; low-quality evidence). There were no occurrences of seizure from local anaesthetic toxicity (22 trials; 1576 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or block infections without neurological injury (18 trials; 1238 participants; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nUltrasound guidance for regional blockade in children probably decreases the risk of failed block. It increases the duration of the block and probably decreases pain scores at one hour after surgery. There may be little or no difference in the risks of some minor complications. The five ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once published and assessed.\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": "Ultrasound guidance for regional blockade in children may decrease the occurrence of failed block. It may also increase duration of the block and reduce pain at one hour after surgery. Ultrasound guidance may decrease the number of needle passes required to perform the block. However, because the vast majority of blocks in children are performed with the child under deep sedation or general anaesthesia, the true value of this finding might be arguable. There were no major complications in the included trials. There may be little or no difference between study groups in risks of minor complications. Altogether, whether or not these findings justify the extra cost of ultrasound guidance should probably also take into account the anaesthesiologist's expertise and local resources. The five ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once published and assessed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23671
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPolycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by infrequent or absent ovulation, and high levels of androgens and insulin (hyperinsulinaemia). Hyperinsulinaemia occurs secondary to insulin resistance and is associated with an increased biochemical risk profile for cardiovascular disease and an increased prevalence of diabetes mellitus. Insulin-sensitising agents such as metformin may be effective in treating PCOS-related anovulation. This is an update of Morley 2017 and only includes studies on metformin.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metformin in combination with or in comparison to clomiphene citrate (CC), letrozole and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) in improving reproductive outcomes and associated gastrointestinal side effects for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases from inception to December 2018: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We searched registers of ongoing trials and reference lists from relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of metformin compared with placebo, no treatment, or in combination with or compared with CC, letrozole and LOD for women with PCOS subfertility.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and bias. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and gastrointestinal adverse effects. Secondary outcomes included other pregnancy outcomes and ovulation. We combined data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and reported quality of the evidence for primary outcomes and reproductive outcomes using GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 41 studies (4552 women). Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate based on GRADE assessment. Limitations were risk of bias (poor reporting of methodology and incomplete outcome data), imprecision and inconsistency.\nMetformin versus placebo or no treatment\nThe evidence suggests that metformin may improve live birth rates compared with placebo (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.51; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 435 women; low-quality evidence). For a live birth rate of 19% following placebo, the live birth rate following metformin would be between 19% and 37%. The metformin group probably experiences more gastrointestinal side effects (OR 4.00, 95% CI 2.63 to 6.09; I2 = 39%; 7 studies, 713 women; moderate-quality evidence). With placebo, the risk of gastrointestinal side effects is 10% whereas with metformin this risk is between 22% and 40%. There are probably higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.65; I2 = 30%; 11 studies, 1213 women; moderate-quality evidence). There may be higher rates of ovulation with metformin (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.85 to 3.75; I2 = 61%; 13 studies, 684 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect on miscarriage rates (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.35; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 748 women; low-quality evidence).\nMetformin plus CC versus CC alone\nWe are uncertain if metformin plus CC improves live birth rates compared to CC alone (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.65; I2 = 28%; 10 studies, 1219 women; low-quality evidence), but gastrointestinal side effects are probably more common with combined therapy (OR 4.26, 95% CI 2.83 to 6.40; I2 = 8%; 6 studies, 852 women; moderate quality evidence). The live birth rate with CC alone is 24%, which may change to between 23% to 34% with combined therapy. With CC alone, the risk of gastrointestinal side effects is 9%, which increases to between 21% to 37% with combined therapy. The combined therapy group probably has higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.99; I2 = 31%; 19 studies, 1790 women; moderate-quality evidence). The combined group may have higher rates of ovulation (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.03; I2 = 63%;21 studies, 1568 women; low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an effect on miscarriage (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.00; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 1206 women; low-quality evidence).\nMetformin versus CC\nWhen all studies were combined, findings for live birth were inconclusive and inconsistent (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; I2 = 86%; 5 studies, 741 women; very low-quality evidence). In subgroup analysis by obesity status, obese women had a lower birth rate in the metformin group (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52; 2 studies, 500 women), while the non-obese group showed a possible benefit from metformin, with high heterogeneity (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.94; I2 = 78%, 3 studies, 241 women; very low-quality evidence). However, due to the very low quality of the evidence we cannot draw any conclusions. Among obese women taking metformin there may be lower rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 500 women; low-quality evidence) and ovulation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.43; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 500 women; low-quality evidence) while among non-obese women, the metformin group may have more pregnancies (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.29; I2 = 26%; 6 studies, 530 women; low-quality evidence) and no clear difference in ovulation rates (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.25; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 352 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in miscarriage rates between the groups (overall: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.66; I2 = 36%; 6 studies, 781 women; low-quality evidence) and no studies reported gastrointestinal side effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur updated review suggests that metformin may be beneficial over placebo for live birth however, more women probably experience gastrointestinal side effects. We are uncertain if metformin plus CC improves live birth rates compared to CC alone, but gastrointestinal side effects are probably increased with combined therapy. When metformin was compared with CC, data for live birth were inconclusive, and the findings were limited by lack of evidence. Results differed by body mass index (BMI), emphasising the importance of stratifying results by BMI. No studies reported gastrointestinal side effects in this comparison. Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage in all three comparisons.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Metformin versus placebo/no treatment\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Metformin may increase the chances of having a live birth compared with no treatment or placebo, however women taking metformin probably experience more gastrointestinal side effects. With placebo, the live birth rate is 19%, and it would be between 19% and 37% with metformin. The risk of gastrointestinal side effects is 10% with placebo, but higher with metformin, between 22% and 40%. Women taking metformin are probably more likely to get pregnant and may be more likely to ovulate. We are uncertain about the effect of metformin compared to placebo or no treatment on miscarriage."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23672
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nProximal dental lesions, limited to dentine, are traditionally treated by invasive (drill and fill) means. Non-invasive alternatives (e.g. fluoride varnish, flossing) might avoid substance loss but their effectiveness depends on patients' adherence. Recently, micro-invasive approaches for treating proximal caries lesions have been tried. These interventions install a barrier either on top (sealing) or within (infiltrating) the lesion. Different methods and materials are currently available for micro-invasive treatments, such as sealing via resin sealants, (polyurethane) patches/tapes, glass ionomer cements (GIC) or resin infiltration.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of micro-invasive treatments for managing proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent dentition in children and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to 31 December 2014: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, LILACs via BIREME Virtual Health Library, Web of Science Conference Proceedings, ZETOC Conference Proceedings, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials to 1 October 2014. There were no language or date restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of at least six months' duration that compared micro-invasive treatments for managing non-cavitated proximal dental decay in primary teeth, permanent teeth or both, versus non-invasive measures, invasive means, no intervention or placebo. We also included studies that compared different types of micro-invasive treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to evaluate risk of bias and synthesise data. We conducted meta-analyses with the random-effects model, using the Becker-Balagtas method to calculate the odds ratio (OR) for lesion progression. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included eight trials, which randomised 365 participants. The trials all used a split-mouth design, some with more than one pair of lesions treated within the same participant. Studies took place in university or dental public health clinics in Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Thailand, Greenland and Chile. Six studies evaluated the effects of micro-invasive treatments in the permanent dentition and two studies on the primary dentition, with caries risk ranging from low to high. Investigators measured caries risk in different studies either by caries experience alone or by using the Cariogram programme, which combines eight contributing factors, including caries experience, diet, saliva and other factors related to caries. The follow-up period in the trials ranged from one to three years. All studies used lesion progression as the primary outcome, evaluating it by different methods of reading radiographs. Four studies received industry support to carry out the research, with one of them being carried out by inventors of the intervention.\nWe judged seven studies to be at high overall risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel. We evaluated intervention effects for all micro-invasive therapies and analysed subgroups according to the different treatment methods reported in the included studies.\nOur meta-analysis, which pooled the most sensitive set of data (in terms of measurement method) from studies presenting data in a format suitable for meta-analysis, showed that micro-invasive treatment significantly reduced the odds of lesion progression compared with non-invasive treatment (e.g fluoride varnish) or oral hygiene advice (e.g to floss) (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.41; 602 lesions; seven studies; I2 = 32%). There was no evidence of subgroup differences (P = 0.36).\nThe four studies that measured adverse events reported no adverse events after micro-invasive treatment. Most studies did not report on any further outcomes.\nWe assessed the quality of evidence for micro-invasive treatments as moderate. It remains unclear which micro-invasive treatment is more advantageous, or if certain clinical conditions or patient characteristics are better suited for micro-invasive treatments than others.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence shows that micro-invasive treatment of proximal caries lesions arrests non-cavitated enamel and initial dentinal lesions (limited to outer third of dentine, based on radiograph) and is significantly more effective than non-invasive professional treatment (e.g. fluoride varnish) or advice (e.g. to floss). We can be moderately confident that further research is unlikely to substantially change the estimate of effect. Due to the small number of studies, it does remain unclear which micro-invasive technique offers the greatest benefit, or whether the effects of micro-invasive treatment confer greater or lesser benefit according to different clinical or patient considerations.\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 current evidence shows that micro-invasive treatments can significantly reduce the likelihood of dental decay progression compared with the described non-invasive methods. There are too few studies to decide which micro-invasive treatment technique is best or the impact of different clinical and patient considerations. No negative side effects were reported; however, only half of the studies measured this outcome and the follow-up time of some of the studies was relatively short."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23673
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBurning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a term used for oral mucosal pain (burning pain or discomfort in the tongue, lips or entire oral cavity) without identifiable cause. General population prevalence varies from 0.1% to 3.9%. Many BMS patients indicate anxiety, depression, personality disorders and impaired quality of life (QoL). This review updates the previous versions published in 2000 and 2005.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of any intervention versus placebo for symptom relief and changes in QoL, taste, and feeling of dryness in people with BMS.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 31 December 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library (searched 31 December 2015), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 31 December 2015), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 31 December 2015). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any treatment against placebo in people with BMS. The primary outcomes were symptom relief (pain/burning) and change in QoL. Secondary outcomes included change in taste, feeling of dryness, and adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcome data were analysed as short-term (up to three months) or long-term (three to six months).\nMain results\nWe included 23 RCTs (1121 analysed participants; 83% female). Interventions were categorised as: antidepressants and antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, benzodiazepines, cholinergics, dietary supplements, electromagnetic radiation, physical barriers, psychological therapies, and topical treatments.\nOnly one RCT was assessed at low risk of bias overall, four RCTs' risk of bias was unclear, and 18 studies were at high risk of bias. Overall quality of the evidence for effectiveness was very low for all interventions and all outcomes.\nTwenty-one RCTs assessed short-term symptom relief. There is very low-quality evidence of benefit from electromagnetic radiation (one RCT, 58 participants), topical benzodiazepines (two RCTs, 111 participants), physical barriers (one RCT, 50 participants), and anticonvulsants (one RCT, 100 participants). We found insufficient/contradictory evidence regarding the effectiveness of antidepressants, cholinergics, systemic benzodiazepines, dietary supplements or topical treatments. No RCT assessing psychological therapies evaluated short-term symptom relief.\nFour studies assessed long-term symptom relief. There is very low-quality evidence of a benefit from psychological therapies (one RCT, 30 participants), capsaicin oral rinse (topical treatment) (one RCT, 18 participants), and topical benzodiazepines (one RCT, 66 participants). We found no evidence of a difference for dietary supplements or lactoperoxidase oral rinse. No studies assessing antidepressants, anticonvulsants, cholinergics, electromagnetic radiation or physical barriers evaluated long-term symptom relief.\nShort-term change in QoL was assessed by seven studies (none long-term).The quality of evidence was very low. A benefit was found for electromagnetic radiation (one RCT, 58 participants), however findings were inconclusive for antidepressants, benzodiazepines, dietary supplements and physical barriers.\nSecondary outcomes (change in taste and feeling of dryness) were only assessed short-term, and the findings for both were also inconclusive.\nWith regard to adverse effects, there is very low-quality evidence that antidepressants increase dizziness and drowsiness (one RCT, 37 participants), and that alpha lipoic acid increased headache (two RCTs, 118 participants) and gastrointestinal complaints (3 RCTs, 138 participants). We found insufficient/contradictory evidence regarding adverse events for anticonvulsants or benzodiazepines. Adverse events were poorly reported or unreported for cholinergics, electromagnetic radiation, and psychological therapies. No adverse events occurred from physical barriers or topical therapy use.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven BMS' potentially disabling nature, the need to identify effective modes of treatment for sufferers is vital. Due to the limited number of clinical trials at low risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any interventions in managing BMS. Further clinical trials, with improved methodology and standardised outcome sets are required in order to establish which treatments are effective. Future studies are encouraged to assess the role of treatments used in other neuropathic pain conditions and psychological therapies in the treatment of BMS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Side effects\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Side effects were more likely to be experienced with antidepressants (dizziness and drowsiness more likely: one study, 37 people), and with a dietary supplement called alpha lipoic acid (also known as ALA) with or without other ingredients (headaches more likely: two studies, 118 people; and upset stomachs more likely: three studies, 138 people)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23674
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMoxibustion, a common treatment in traditional Chinese medicine, involves burning herbal preparations containing Artemisia vulgaris on or above the skin at acupuncture points. Its intended effect is to enhance body function, and it could reduce the side effects of chemotherapy or radiotherapy and improve quality of life (QoL) in people with cancer.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of moxibustion for alleviating side effects associated with chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both in people with cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid and AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) from their inception to February 2018. We also searched databases in China including the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Medical Current Contents (CMCC), TCMonline, Chinese Dissertation Database (CDDB), China Medical Academic Conference (CMAC) and Index to Chinese Periodical Literature from inception to August 2017. Registries for clinical trials and other resources were also searched.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing moxibustion treatment, including moxa cone and moxa stick, versus sham, no treatment or conventional treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (HWZ and FC) independently extracted data on study design, participants, treatment and control intervention, and outcome measures, and they also assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We performed meta-analyses, expressing dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe included 29 RCTs involving 2569 participants. Five RCTs compared moxibustion versus no treatment, 15 compared moxibustion plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment, one compared moxibustion versus sham moxibustion, and eight compared moxibustion versus conventional medicine. The overall risk of bias was high in 18 studies and unclear in 11 studies. Studies measured outcomes in various ways, and we could rarely pool data.\nMoxibustion versus no treatment: low-certainty evidence from single small studies suggested that moxibustion was associated with higher white blood cell counts (MD 1.77 × 109/L; 95% CI 0.76 to 2.78; 80 participants, low-certainty evidence) and higher serum haemoglobin concentrations (MD 1.33 g/L; 95% CI 0.59 to 2.07; 66 participants, low-certainty evidence) in people with cancer, during or after chemotherapy/radiotherapy, compared with no treatment. There was no evidence of an effect on leukopenia (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.56; 72 participants, low-certainty evidence) between study groups. The effects on immune function (CD3, CD4, and CD8 counts) were inconsistent.\nMoxibustion versus sham moxibustion: low-certainty evidence from one study (50 participants) suggested that moxibustion improved QoL (measured as the score on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30)) compared with sham treatment (MD 14.88 points; 95% CI 4.83 to 24.93). Low-certainty evidence from this study also showed reductions in symptom scores for nausea and vomiting (MD −38.57 points, 95% CI −48.67 to −28.47) and diarrhoea (MD −13.81, 95% CI −27.52 to −0.10), and higher mean white blood cell count (MD 1.72 × 109/L, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.47), serum haemoglobin (MD 2.06 g/L, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.86) and platelets (MD 210.79 × 109/L, 95% CI 167.02 to 254.56) when compared with sham moxibustion.\nMoxibustion versus conventional medicines: low-certainty evidence from one study (90 participants) suggested that moxibustion improved WBC count eight days after treatment ended compared with conventional medicines (MD 0.40 × 109/L; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.65). Low-certainty evidence from two studies (235 participants) suggested moxibustion improved serum haemoglobin concentrations compared with conventional medicines (MD 10.28 g/L; 95% CI 4.51 to 16.05).\nMoxibustion plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment alone: low-certainty evidence showed that moxibustion plus conventional treatment was associated with lower incidence and severity of leukopenia (WHO grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.64; 1 study, 56 participants), higher QoL scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 (MD 8.85 points, 95% CI 4.25 to 13.46; 3 studies, 134 participants, I² = 26%), lower symptom scores for nausea and vomiting (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.74; 7 studies, 801participants; I² = 19%), higher white blood cell counts (data not pooled due to heterogeneity), higher serum haemoglobin (MD 3.97 g/L, 95% CI 1.40 to 6.53; 2 studies, 142 participants, I² = 0%). There was no difference in platelet counts between the two groups (MD 13.48 × 109/L; 95% CI −16.00 to 42.95; 2 studies, 142 participants; I² = 34%).\nMost included studies did not report related adverse events, such as burning or allergic reactions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLimited, low-certainty evidence suggests that moxibustion treatment may help to reduce the haematological and gastrointestinal toxicities of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, improving QoL in people with cancer; however, the evidence is not conclusive, and we cannot rule out benefits or risks with this treatment. High-quality studies that report adverse effects are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main findings?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found some small single studies showing various beneficial effects of moxibustion on increasing blood cells and promoting immunological function, decreasing gastrointestinal symptoms caused by toxicity of chemotherapy or radiotherapy (such as nausea and vomiting), and improving quality of life. However, the poor reporting and high risk of bias in study methods reduced the certainty of the evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23675
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPolycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by the clinical signs of oligo-amenorrhoea, infertility and hirsutism. Conventional treatment of PCOS includes a range of oral pharmacological agents, lifestyle changes and surgical modalities. Beta-endorphin is present in the follicular fluid of both normal and polycystic ovaries. It was demonstrated that the beta-endorphin levels in ovarian follicular fluid of otherwise healthy women who were undergoing ovulation were much higher than the levels measured in plasma. Given that acupuncture impacts on beta-endorphin production, which may affect gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) secretion, it is postulated that acupuncture may have a role in ovulation induction via increased beta-endorphin production effecting GnRH secretion. This is an update of our previous review published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatment for oligo/anovulatory women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) for both fertility and symptom control.\nSearch methods\nWe identified relevant studies from databases including the Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CNKI, CBM and VIP. We also searched trial registries and reference lists from relevant papers. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CNKI and VIP searches are current to May 2018. CBM database search is to November 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied the efficacy of acupuncture treatment for oligo/anovulatory women with PCOS. We excluded quasi- or pseudo-RCTs.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated risk ratios (RR), mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Primary outcomes were live birth rate, multiple pregnancy rate and ovulation rate, and secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, restored regular menstruation period, miscarriage rate and adverse events. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs with 1546 women. Five RCTs were included in our previous review and three new RCTs were added in this update of the review. They compared true acupuncture versus sham acupuncture (three RCTs), true acupuncture versus relaxation (one RCT), true acupuncture versus clomiphene (one RCT), low-frequency electroacupuncture versus physical exercise or no intervention (one RCT) and true acupuncture versus Diane-35 (two RCTs). Studies that compared true acupuncture versus Diane-35 did not measure fertility outcomes as they were focused on symptom control.\nSeven of the studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain.\nFor true acupuncture versus sham acupuncture, we could not exclude clinically relevant differences in live birth (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.24; 1 RCT, 926 women; low-quality evidence); multiple pregnancy rate (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.45; 1 RCT, 926 women; low-quality evidence); ovulation rate (SMD 0.02, 95% CI –0.15 to 0.19, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 1010 women; low-quality evidence); clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 1117 women; low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rate (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.56; 1 RCT, 926 women; low-quality evidence).\nNumber of intermenstrual days may have improved in participants receiving true acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture (MD –312.09 days, 95% CI –344.59 to –279.59; 1 RCT, 141 women; low-quality evidence).\nTrue acupuncture probably worsens adverse events compared to sham acupuncture (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 1230 women; moderate-quality evidence).\nNo studies reported data on live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate for the other comparisons: physical exercise or no intervention, relaxation and clomiphene. Studies including Diane-35 did not measure fertility outcomes.\nWe were uncertain whether acupuncture improved ovulation rate (measured by ultrasound three months post treatment) compared to relaxation (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 1 RCT, 28 women; very low-quality evidence) or Diane-35 (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42; 1 RCT, 58 women; very low-quality evidence).\nOverall evidence ranged from very low quality to moderate quality. The main limitations were failure to report important clinical outcomes and very serious imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor true acupuncture versus sham acupuncture we cannot exclude clinically relevant differences in live birth rate, multiple pregnancy rate, ovulation rate, clinical pregnancy rate or miscarriage. Number of intermenstrual days may improve in participants receiving true acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture. True acupuncture probably worsens adverse events compared to sham acupuncture.\nNo studies reported data on live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate for the other comparisons: physical exercise or no intervention, relaxation and clomiphene. Studies including Diane-35 did not measure fertility outcomes as the women in these trials did not seek fertility.\nWe are uncertain whether acupuncture improves ovulation rate (measured by ultrasound three months post treatment) compared to relaxation or Diane-35. The other comparisons did not report on this outcome.\nAdverse events were recorded in the acupuncture group for the comparisons physical exercise or no intervention, clomiphene and Diane-35. These included dizziness, nausea and subcutaneous haematoma. Evidence was very low quality with very wide CIs and very low event rates.\nThere are only a limited number of RCTs in this area, limiting our ability to determine effectiveness of acupuncture for PCOS.\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 effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatment for ovulation disorders in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23676
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTeachers and school staff should be competent in managing asthma in schools. Demonstrated low levels of asthma knowledge mean that staff may not know how best to protect a child with asthma in their care, or may fail to take appropriate action in the event of a serious attack. Education about asthma could help to improve this knowledge and lead to better asthma outcomes for children.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of asthma education programmes for school staff, and to identify content and attributes underpinning them.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention to educate school staff about asthma versus a control group. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors screened the searches, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were emergency department (ED) or hospital visits, mortality and asthma control; we graded the main results and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table. We planned a qualitative synthesis of intervention characteristics, but study authors were unable to provide the necessary information.\nWe analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with a random-effects model. We assessed clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses, and we narratively described skewed data.\nMain results\nFive cluster-RCTs of 111 schools met the review eligibility criteria. Investigators measured outcomes in participating staff and often in children or parents, most often at between 1 and 12 months.\nAll interventions were educational programmes but duration, content and delivery varied; some involved elements of training for pupils or primary care providers. We noted risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition biases, although to a differing extent across studies and outcomes.\nQuanitative and qualitative analyses were limited. Only one study reported visits to the ED or hospital and provided data that were too skewed for analysis. No studies reported any deaths or adverse events. Studies did not report asthma control consistently, but results showed no difference between groups on the paediatric asthma quality of life questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.31; 1005 participants; we downgraded the quality of evidence to low for risk of bias and indirectness). Data for symptom days, night-time awakenings, restricted activities of daily living and school absences were skewed or could not be analysed; some mean scores were better in the trained group, but most differences between groups were small and did not persist to 24 months.\nSchools that received asthma education were more adherent to asthma policies, and staff were better prepared; more schools that had received staff asthma training had written asthma policies compared with control schools, more intervention schools showed improvement in measures taken to prevent or manage exercise-induced asthma attacks and more staff at intervention schools reported that they felt able to administer salbutamol via a spacer. However, the quality of the evidence was low; results show imbalances at baseline, and confidence in the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Staff knowledge was higher in groups that had received asthma education, although results were inconsistent and difficult to interpret owing to differences between scales (low quality).\nAvailable information about the interventions was insufficient for review authors to conduct a meaningful qualitative synthesis of the content that led to a successful intervention, or of the resources required to replicate results accurately.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAsthma education for school staff increases asthma knowledge and preparedness, but studies vary and all available evidence is of low quality. Studies have not yet captured whether this improvement in knowledge has led to appreciable benefits over the short term or the longer term for the safety and health of children with asthma in school. Randomised evidence does not contribute to our knowledge of content or attributes of interventions that lead to the best outcomes, or of resources required for successful implementation.\nComplete reporting of the content and resources of educational interventions is essential for assessment of their effectiveness and feasibility for implementation. This applies to both randomised and non-randomised studies, although the latter may be better placed to observe important clinical outcomes such as exacerbations and mortality in the longer term.\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 five studies including more than 100 schools that compared an asthma education programme for school staff against a control. Researchers measured outcomes for teachers and staff, and often for children or parents as well, most often at between 1 and 12 months. We conducted the most recent search for studies on 29 November 2016."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23677
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic lung condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and limited lung airflow, dyspnoea and recurrent exacerbations. Suboptimal therapy or non-adherence may result in limited effectiveness of pharmacological treatments and subsequently poor health outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of interventions intended to improve adherence to single or combined pharmacological treatments compared with usual care or interventions that are not intended to improve adherence in people with COPD.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (search date 1 May 2020). We also searched web-based clinical trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs included adults with COPD diagnosed by established criteria (e.g. Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease). Interventions included change to pharmacological treatment regimens, adherence aids, education, behavioural or psychological interventions (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy), communication or follow-up by a health professional (e.g. telephone, text message or face-to-face), multi-component interventions, and interventions to improve inhaler technique.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Working in pairs, four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed confidence in the evidence for each primary outcome using GRADE. Primary outcomes were adherence, quality of life and hospital service utilisation. Adherence measures included the Adherence among Patients with Chronic Disease questionnaire (APCD). Quality of life measures included the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ).\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials (2191 participants) in the analysis with follow-up ranging from six to 52 weeks. Age ranged from 54 to 75 years, and COPD severity ranged from mild to very severe. Trials were conducted in the USA, Spain, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Northern Ireland, Iran, South Korea, China and Belgium. Risk of bias was high due to lack of blinding. Evidence certainty was downgraded due to imprecision and small participant numbers.\nSingle component interventions\nSix studies (55 to 212 participants) reported single component interventions including changes to pharmacological treatment (different roflumilast doses or different inhaler types), adherence aids (Bluetooth inhaler reminder device), educational (comprehensive verbal instruction), behavioural or psychological (motivational interview).\nChange in dose of roflumilast may result in little to no difference in adherence (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.99; studies = 1, participants = 55; low certainty). A Bluetooth inhaler reminder device did not improve adherence, but comprehensive verbal instruction from a health professional did improve mean adherence (prescription refills) (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.54). Motivational interview improved mean adherence scores on the APCD scale (MD 22.22, 95% CI 8.42 to 36.02).\nUse of a single inhaler compared to two separate inhalers may have little to no impact on quality of life (SGRQ; MD 0.80, 95% CI –3.12 to 4.72; very low certainty). A Bluetooth inhaler monitoring device may provide a small improvement in quality of life on the CCQ (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.73; very low certainty).\nSingle inhaler use may have little to no impact on the number of people admitted to hospital compared to two separate inhalers (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.90; very low certainty). Single component interventions may have little to no impact on the number of people expereincing adverse events (very low certainty evidence from studies of a change in pharmacotherapy or use of adherence aids). A change in pharmacotherapy may have little to no impact on exacerbations or deaths (very low certainty).\nMulti-component interventions\nEight studies (30 to 734 participants) reported multi-component interventions including tailored care package that included adherence support as a key component or included inhaler technique as a component.\nA multi-component intervention may result in more people adhering to pharmacotherapy compared to control at 40.5 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.59; studies = 4, participants = 446; I2 = 0%; low certainty).\nThere may be little to no impact on quality of life (SGRQ, Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, CAT) (studies = 3; low to very low certainty).\nMulti-component interventions may help to reduce the number of people admitted to hospital for any cause (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.63; studies = 2, participants = 877; low certainty), or COPD-related hospitalisations (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; studies = 2, participants = 220; moderate certainty). There may be a small benefit on people experiencing severe exacerbations.\nThere may be little to no effect on adverse events, serious adverse events or deaths, but events were infrequently reported and were rare (low to very low certainty).\nAuthors' conclusions\nSingle component interventions (e.g. education or motivational interviewing provided by a health professional) can help to improve adherence to pharmacotherapy (low to very low certainty). There were slight improvements in quality of life with a Bluetooth inhaler device, but evidence is from one study and very low certainty. Change to pharmacotherapy (e.g. single inhaler instead of two, or different doses of roflumilast) has little impact on hospitalisations or exacerbations (very low certainty). There is no difference in people experiencing adverse events (all-cause or COPD-related), or deaths (very low certainty).\nMulti-component interventions may improve adherence with education, motivational or behavioural components delivered by health professionals (low certainty). There is little to no impact on quality of life (low to very low certainty). They may help reduce the number of people admitted to hospital overall (specifically pharmacist-led approaches) (low certainty), and fewer people may have COPD-related hospital admissions (moderately certainty). There may be a small reduction in people experiencing severe exacerbations, but evidence is from one study (low certainty). Limited evidence found no difference in people experiencing adverse events, serious adverse events or deaths (low to very low certainty).\nThe evidence presented should be interpreted with caution. Larger studies with more intervention types, especially single interventions, are needed. It is unclear which specific COPD subgroups would benefit, therefore discussions between health professionals and patients may help to determine whether they will help to improve health outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Studies identified and selected\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched databases to find the studies. Four people working in pairs looked at the lists of studies separately and agreed on which ones were included. The latest search for studies was conducted in May 2020."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23678
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nObesity is a global public health threat. The transtheoretical stages of change (TTM SOC) model has long been considered a useful interventional approach in lifestyle modification programmes, but its effectiveness in producing sustainable weight loss in overweight and obese individuals has been found to vary considerably.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of dietary intervention or physical activity interventions, or both, and other interventions based on the transtheoretical model (TTM) stages of change (SOC) to produce sustainable (one year and longer) weight loss in overweight and obese adults.\nSearch methods\nStudies were obtained from searches of multiple electronic bibliographic databases. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. The date of the last search, for all databases, was 17 December 2013.\nSelection criteria\nTrials were included if they fulfilled the criteria of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) using the TTM SOC as a model, that is a theoretical framework or guideline in designing lifestyle modification strategies, mainly dietary and physical activity interventions, versus a comparison intervention of usual care; one of the outcome measures of the study was weight loss, measured as change in weight or body mass index (BMI); participants were overweight or obese adults only; and the intervention was delivered by healthcare professionals or trained lay people at the hospital and community level, including at home.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted the data, assessed studies for risk of bias and evaluated overall study quality according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We resolved disagreements by discussion or consultation with a third party. A narrative, descriptive analysis was conducted for the systematic review.\nMain results\nA total of three studies met the inclusion criteria, allocating 2971 participants to the intervention and control groups. The total number of participants randomised to the intervention groups was 1467, whilst 1504 were randomised to the control groups. The length of intervention was 9, 12 and 24 months in the different trials. The use of TTM SOC in combination with diet or physical activity, or both, and other interventions in the included studies produced inconclusive evidence that TTM SOC interventions led to sustained weight loss (the mean difference between intervention and control groups varied from 2.1 kg to 0.2 kg at 24 months; 2971 participants; 3 trials; low quality evidence). Following application of TTM SOC there were improvements in physical activity and dietary habits, such as increased exercise duration and frequency, reduced dietary fat intake and increased fruit and vegetable consumption (very low quality evidence). Weight gain was reported as an adverse event in one of the included trials. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, morbidity, or economic costs as outcomes. The small number of studies and their variable methodological quality limit the applicability of the findings to clinical practice. The main limitations include inadequate reporting of outcomes and the methods for allocation, randomisation and blinding; extensive use of self-reported measures to estimate the effects of interventions on a number of outcomes, including weight loss, dietary consumption and physical activity levels; and insufficient assessment of sustainability due to lack of post-intervention assessments.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence to support the use of TTM SOC in weight loss interventions is limited by risk of bias and imprecision, not allowing firm conclusions to be drawn. When combined with diet or physical activity, or both, and other interventions we found very low quality evidence that it might lead to better dietary and physical activity habits. This systematic review highlights the need for well-designed RCTs that apply the principles of the TTM SOC appropriately to produce conclusive evidence about the effect of TTM SOC lifestyle interventions on weight loss and other health 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": "Overall, the quality of the evidence was low or very low. The main limitations included incomplete reporting of outcomes, methodological shortcomings, extensive use of self-reported measures and insufficient assessment of sustainability due to the lack of long-term assessments."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23679
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGingival recession is defined as the oral exposure of the root surface due to a displacement of the gingival margin apical to the cemento-enamel junction and it is regularly linked to the deterioration of dental aesthetics. Successful treatment of recession-type defects is based on the use of predictable root coverage periodontal plastic surgery (RCPPS) procedures. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of different root coverage procedures in the treatment of single and multiple recession-type defects.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 January 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (15 January 2018). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only of at least 6 months' duration evaluating recession areas (Miller's Class I or II ≥ 3 mm) and treated by means of RCPPS procedures.\nData collection and analysis\nScreening of eligible studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. We expressed results as random-effects models using mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the body of evidence of our main comparisons.\nMain results\nWe included 48 RCTs in the review. Of these, we assessed one as at low risk of bias, 12 as at high risk of bias and 35 as at unclear risk of bias. The results indicated a greater reduction in gingival recession for subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) + coronally advanced flap (CAF) compared to guided tissue regeneration with resorbable membranes (GTR rm) + CAF (MD -0.37 mm; 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13, P = 0.002; 3 studies; 98 participants; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference in gingival recession reduction between acellular dermal matrix grafts (ADMG) + CAF and SCTG + CAF or between enamel matrix protein (EMP) + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Regarding clinical attachment level changes, GTR rm + CAF promoted additional gains compared to SCTG + CAF (MD 0.35; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63, P = 0.02; 3 studies; 98 participants; low-quality evidence) but there was insufficient evidence of a difference between ADMG + CAF and SCTG + CAF or between EMP + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Greater gains in the keratinized tissue were found for SCTG + CAF when compared to EMP + CAF (MD -1.06 mm; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.76, P < 0.00001; 2 studies; 62 participants; low-quality evidence), and SCTG + CAF when compared to GTR rm + CAF (MD -1.77 mm; 95% CI -2.66 to -0.89, P < 0.0001; 3 studies; 98 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference in keratinized tissue gain between ADMG + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Few data exist on aesthetic condition change related to patients' opinion and patients' preference for a specific procedure.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSubepithelial connective tissue grafts, coronally advanced flap alone or associated with other biomaterial and guided tissue regeneration may be used as root coverage procedures for treating localised or multiple recession-type defects. The available evidence base indicates that in cases where both root coverage and gain in the width of keratinized tissue are expected, the use of subepithelial connective tissue grafts shows a slight improvement in outcome. There is also some weak evidence suggesting that acellular dermal matrix grafts appear as the soft tissue substitute that may provide the most similar outcomes to those achieved by subepithelial connective tissue grafts. RCTs are necessary to identify possible factors associated with the prognosis of each RCPPS procedure. The potential impact of bias on these outcomes is unclear.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We judged the quality of the evidence to be low or very low mainly due to problems with the design of the studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23680
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients with medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms are common in primary care. Previous reviews have reported benefit from specialised interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy and consultation letters, but there is a need for treatment models which can be applied within the primary care setting. Primary care studies of enhanced care, which includes techniques of reattribution or cognitive behavioural therapy, or both, have shown changes in healthcare professionals' attitudes and behaviour. However, studies of patient outcome have shown variable results and the value of enhanced care on patient outcome remains unclear.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of enhanced care interventions for adults with functional somatic symptoms in primary care. The intervention should be delivered by professionals providing first contact care and be compared to treatment as usual. The review focused on patient outcomes only.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) (all years to August 2012), together with Ovid searches (to September 2012) on MEDLINE (1950 - ), EMBASE (1980 - ) and PsycINFO (1806 - ). Earlier searches of the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), CINAHL, PSYNDEX, SIGLE, and LILACS were conducted in April 2010, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in October 2009. No language restrictions were applied. Electronic searches were supplemented by handsearches of relevant conference proceedings (2004 to 2012), reference lists (2011) and contact with authors of included studies and experts in the field (2011).\nSelection criteria\nWe limited our literature search to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), primary care, and adults with functional somatic symptoms. Subsequently we selected studies including all of the following: 1) a trial arm with treatment as usual; 2) an intervention using a structured treatment model which draws on explanations for symptoms in broad bio-psycho-social terms or encourages patients to develop additional strategies for dealing with their physical symptoms, or both; 3) delivery of the intervention by primary care professionals providing first contact care; and 4) assessment of patient outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened identified study abstracts. Disagreements about trial selections were resolved by a third review author. Data from selected publications were independently extracted and risk of bias assessed by two of three authors, avoiding investigators reviewing their own studies. We contacted authors from included studies to obtain missing information. We used continuous outcomes converted to standardised mean differences (SMDs) and based analyses on changes from baseline to follow-up, adjusted for clustering.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies from the literature search, but only six provided sufficient data for analyses. Included studies were European, cluster RCTs with adult participants seeing their usual doctor (in total 233 general practitioners and 1787 participants). Methodological quality was only moderate as studies had no blinding of healthcare professionals and several studies had a risk of recruitment and attrition bias. Studies were heterogeneous with regard to selection of patient populations and intensity of interventions. Outcomes relating to physical or general health (physical symptoms, quality of life) showed substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2 > 70%) and post hoc analysis suggested that benefit was confined to more intensive interventions; thus we did not calculate a pooled effect. Outcomes relating to mental health showed less heterogeneity and we conducted meta-analyses, which found non-significant overall effect sizes with SMDs for changes at 6 to 24 months follow-up: mental health (3 studies) SMD -0.04 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.10), illness worry (3 studies) SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22), depression (4 studies) SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.20) and anxiety (2 studies) SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.25). Effects on sick leave could not be estimated. Three studies of patient satisfaction with care all showed positive but non-significant effects, and measures were too heterogeneous to allow meta-analysis. Results on healthcare utilisation were inconclusive. We analysed study discontinuation and found that both short term and long term discontinuation occurred more often in patients allocated to the intervention group, RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.46) at 12 to 24 months.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence does not answer the question whether enhanced care delivered by front line primary care professionals has an effect or not on the outcome of patients with functional somatic symptoms. Enhanced care may have an effect when delivered per protocol to well-defined groups of patients with functional disorders, but this needs further investigation. Attention should be paid to difficulties including limited consultation time, lack of skills, the need for a degree of diagnostic openness, and patient resistance towards psychosomatic attributions. There is some indication from this and other reviews that more intensive interventions are more successful in changing patient outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What questions does the review aim to answer?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Does training GPs to enhance care for patients with functional somatic symptoms improve physical or mental health outcomes?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23681
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnnually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income country settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in both community and health facility settings.\nSearch methods\nSearches were conducted without date or language limits in December 2022 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) trial registries. The reference lists of retrieved studies or related systematic reviews were screened for studies not identified by the searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over trials, and cluster trials that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within either the community setting or in health facility settings, and the neonates in the neonatal care units or community settings.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of suspected infection (author-defined in study) within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death).\nMain results\nOur review included six studies: two RCTs, one cluster-RCT, and three cross-over trials. Three studies involved 3281 neonates; the remaining three did not specify the actual number of neonates included in their study. Three studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The number of nurses included was not specified by one study. A cluster-RCT included 103 pregnant women of over 34 weeks gestation from 10 villages in a community setting (sources of data: 103 mother-neonate pairs) and another community-based study included 258 married pregnant women at 32 to 34 weeks of gestation (the trial reported adverse events on 258 mothers and 246 neonates). Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of suspected infection (author-defined in study) within the first 28 days of life. Three studies were rated as having low risk for allocation bias, two studies were rated as unclear risk, and one was rated as having high risk. One study was rated as having a low risk of bias for allocation concealment, one study was rated as unclear risk, and four werw rated as having high risk. Two studies were rated as having low risk for performance bias and two were rated as having low risk for attrition bias.\nOne class of agent versus another class of agent: 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients)\nFor this comparison, no study assessed the effect of the intervention on the incidence of suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two percent chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) probably reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser in regard to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.93; 2932 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB): 385.\nThe adverse outcome was reported as mean self-reported skin change and mean observer-reported skin change. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses’ skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser, based on very low-certainty evidence for mean self-reported skin change (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% CI -1.59 to 0.01; 119 participants, 1 study) and on mean observer reported skin change (MD -0.19, CI -0.35 to -0.03; 119 participants, 1 study), respectively.\nWe identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison.\nNone of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor the duration of hospital stay.\nOne class of agent versus two or more other classes of agent: CHG compared to plain liquid soap + hand sanitiser\nWe identified no studies that reported on our primary and secondary outcomes for this comparison except for author-defined adverse events. We are very uncertain whether plain soap plus hand sanitiser is better than CHG for nurses’ skin based on very low-certainty evidence (MD -1.87, 95% CI -3.74 to -0.00; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).\nOne agent versus standard care: alcohol-based handrub (hand sanitiser) versus usual care\nThe evidence is very uncertain whether alcohol-based handrub is better than 'usual care' in the prevention of suspected infections, as reported by mothers (RR 0.98, CI 0.69 to 1.39; 103 participants, 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether alcohol-based hand sanitiser is better than 'usual care' in reducing the occurrence of early and late neonatal mortality (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.00; 103 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) and (RR 0.29, CI 0.01 to 7.00; 103 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), respectively. We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found a paucity of data that would allow us to reach meaningful conclusions pertaining to the superiority of one form of antiseptic hand hygiene agent over another for the prevention of neonatal infection. Also, the sparse available data were of moderate- to very low-certainty. We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is hand hygiene?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Hand hygiene refers to any form of hand cleansing. Another word for hand hygiene is handwashing, which implies washing hands with plain or antiseptic soap and water."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23682
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis (CF) is a common life-shortening genetic condition caused by a variant in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. A class II CFTR variant F508del (found in up to 90% of people with CF (pwCF)) is the commonest CF-causing variant. The faulty protein is degraded before reaching the cell membrane, where it needs to be to effect transepithelial salt transport. The F508del variant lacks meaningful CFTR function and corrective therapy could benefit many pwCF. Therapies in this review include single correctors and any combination of correctors and potentiators.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of CFTR correctors (with or without potentiators) on clinically important benefits and harms in pwCF of any age with class II CFTR mutations (most commonly F508del).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, reference lists of relevant articles and online trials registries. Most recent search: 14 October 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel design) comparing CFTR correctors to control in pwCF with class II mutations.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evidence quality (GRADE); we contacted investigators for additional data.\nMain results\nWe included 19 RCTs (2959 participants), lasting between 1 day and 24 weeks; an extension of two lumacaftor-ivacaftor studies provided additional 96-week safety data (1029 participants). We assessed eight monotherapy RCTs (344 participants) (4PBA, CPX, lumacaftor, cavosonstat and FDL169), six dual-therapy RCTs (1840 participants) (lumacaftor-ivacaftor or tezacaftor-ivacaftor) and five triple-therapy RCTs (775 participants) (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor or VX-659-tezacaftor-ivacaftor); below we report only the data from elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor combination which proceeded to Phase 3 trials. In 14 RCTs participants had F508del/F508del genotypes, in three RCTs F508del/minimal function (MF) genotypes and in two RCTs both genotypes.\nRisk of bias judgements varied across different comparisons. Results from 11 RCTs may not be applicable to all pwCF due to age limits (e.g. adults only) or non-standard design (converting from monotherapy to combination therapy).\nMonotherapy\nInvestigators reported no deaths or clinically-relevant improvements in quality of life (QoL). There was insufficient evidence to determine any important effects on lung function.\nNo placebo-controlled monotherapy RCT demonstrated differences in mild, moderate or severe adverse effects (AEs); the clinical relevance of these events is difficult to assess with their variety and small number of participants (all F508del/F508del).\nDual therapy\nInvestigators reported no deaths (moderate- to high-quality evidence). QoL scores (respiratory domain) favoured both lumacaftor-ivacaftor and tezacaftor-ivacaftor therapy compared to placebo at all time points. At six months lumacaftor 600 mg or 400 mg (both once daily) plus ivacaftor improved Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire (CFQ) scores slightly compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 2.62 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 4.59); 1061 participants; high-quality evidence). A similar effect was observed for twice-daily lumacaftor (200 mg) plus ivacaftor (250 mg), but with low-quality evidence (MD 2.50 points (95% CI 0.10 to 5.10)). The mean increase in CFQ scores with twice-daily tezacaftor (100 mg) and ivacaftor (150 mg) was approximately five points (95% CI 3.20 to 7.00; 504 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At six months, the relative change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted improved with combination therapies compared to placebo by: 5.21% with once-daily lumacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 3.61% to 6.80%; 504 participants; high-quality evidence); 2.40% with twice-daily lumacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 0.40% to 4.40%; 204 participants; low-quality evidence); and 6.80% with tezacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 5.30 to 8.30%; 520 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nMore pwCF reported early transient breathlessness with lumacaftor-ivacaftor, odds ratio 2.05 (99% CI 1.10 to 3.83; 739 participants; high-quality evidence). Over 120 weeks (initial study period and follow-up) systolic blood pressure rose by 5.1 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure by 4.1 mmHg with twice-daily 400 mg lumacaftor-ivacaftor (80 participants; high-quality evidence). The tezacaftor-ivacaftor RCTs did not report these adverse effects.\nPulmonary exacerbation rates decreased in pwCF receiving additional therapies to ivacaftor compared to placebo: lumacaftor 600 mg hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.87; 739 participants); lumacaftor 400 mg, HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.76; 740 participants); and tezacaftor, HR 0.64 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; 506 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).\nTriple therapy\nThree RCTs of elexacaftor to tezacaftor-ivacaftor in pwCF (aged 12 years and older with either one or two F508del variants) reported no deaths (high-quality evidence). All other evidence was graded as moderate quality. In 403 participants with F508del/minimal function (MF) elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor improved QoL respiratory scores (MD 20.2 points (95% CI 16.2 to 24.2)) and absolute change in FEV1 (MD 14.3% predicted (95% CI 12.7 to 15.8)) compared to placebo at 24 weeks. At four weeks in 107 F508del/F508del participants, elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor improved QoL respiratory scores (17.4 points (95% CI 11.9 to 22.9)) and absolute change in FEV1 (MD 10.0% predicted (95% CI 7.5 to 12.5)) compared to tezacaftor-ivacaftor. There was probably little or no difference in the number or severity of AEs between elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor and placebo or control (moderate-quality evidence). In 403 F508del/F508del participants, there was a longer time to protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation with elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor over 24 weeks (moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence that corrector monotherapy has clinically important effects in pwCF with F508del/F508del.\nBoth dual therapies (lumacaftor-ivacaftor, tezacaftor-ivacaftor) result in similar improvements in QoL and respiratory function with lower pulmonary exacerbation rates. Lumacaftor-ivacaftor was associated with an increase in early transient shortness of breath and longer-term increases in blood pressure (not observed for tezacaftor-ivacaftor). Tezacaftor-ivacaftor has a better safety profile, although data are lacking in children under 12 years. In this population, lumacaftor-ivacaftor had an important impact on respiratory function with no apparent immediate safety concerns; but this should be balanced against the blood pressure increase and shortness of breath seen in longer-term adult data when considering lumacaftor-ivacaftor.\nThere is high-quality evidence of clinical efficacy with probably little or no difference in AEs for triple (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor) therapy in pwCF with one or two F508del variants aged 12 years or older. Further RCTs are required in children (under 12 years) and those with more severe respiratory function.\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 looked at drugs (or drug combinations) for correcting the basic defect in the most common cystic fibrosis (CF)-causing gene variant (F508del) and assessed their impact on outcomes important to people with CF (pwCF), e.g. survival, quality of life (QoL), lung function and safety."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23683
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMirror therapy is used to improve motor function after stroke. During mirror therapy, a mirror is placed in the person's midsagittal plane, thus reflecting movements of the non-paretic side as if it were the affected side.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the effectiveness of mirror therapy compared with no treatment, placebo or sham therapy, or other treatments for improving motor function and motor impairment after stroke. We also aimed to assess the effects of mirror therapy on activities of daily living, pain, and visuospatial neglect.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro (last searched 16 August 2017). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, researchers and experts in our field of study.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised cross-over trials comparing mirror therapy with any control intervention for people after stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials based on the inclusion criteria, documented the methodological quality, assessed risks of bias in the included studies, and extracted data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables, and as odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables.\nMain results\nWe included 62 studies with a total of 1982 participants that compared mirror therapy with other interventions. Of these, 57 were randomised controlled trials and five randomised cross-over trials. Participants had a mean age of 59 years (30 to 73 years). Mirror therapy was provided three to seven times a week, between 15 and 60 minutes for each session for two to eight weeks (on average five times a week, 30 minutes a session for four weeks).When compared with all other interventions, we found moderate-quality evidence that mirror therapy has a significant positive effect on motor function (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.67; 1173 participants; 36 studies) and motor impairment (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.66; 1292 participants; 39 studies). However, effects on motor function are influenced by the type of control intervention. Additionally, based on moderate-quality evidence, mirror therapy may improve activities of daily living (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.65; 622 participants; 19 studies). We found low-quality evidence for a significant positive effect on pain (SMD −0.89, 95% CI −1.67 to −0.11; 248 participants; 6 studies) and no clear effect for improving visuospatial neglect (SMD 1.06, 95% CI −0.10 to 2.23; 175 participants; 5 studies). No adverse effects were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results indicate evidence for the effectiveness of mirror therapy for improving upper extremity motor function, motor impairment, activities of daily living, and pain, at least as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation for people after stroke. Major limitations are small sample sizes and lack of reporting of methodological details, resulting in uncertain evidence quality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The studies provide moderately-reliable evidence that MT improves movement (motor function, motor impairment) and the performance of daily activities. However, there was only low reliability that MT decreases pain and visuospatial neglect. This may be due to the small number of studies. Further research is needed, with larger methodologically-sound studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23684
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a key public health priority. A number of dietary factors have been associated with modifying CVD risk factors. One such factor is dietary fibre which may have a beneficial association with CVD risk factors. There is a need to review the current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of dietary fibre for the primary prevention of CVD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1947 to January 2015) and Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to January 2015) as well as two clinical trial registers in January 2015. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles. No language restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected RCTs that assessed the effects of dietary fibre compared with no intervention or a minimal intervention on CVD and related risk factors. Participants included adults who are at risk of CVD or those from the general population.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias; a third author checked any differences. A different author checked analyses.\nMain results\nWe included 23 RCTs (1513 participants randomised) examining the effect of dietary fibre. The risk of bias was unclear for most studies and studies had small sample sizes. Few studies had an intervention duration of longer than 12 weeks. There was a wide variety of fibre sources used, with little similarity between groups in the choice of intervention.\nNone of the studies reported on mortality (total or cardiovascular) or cardiovascular events. Results on lipids suggest there is a significant beneficial effect of increased fibre on total cholesterol levels (17 trials (20 comparisons), 1067 participants randomised, mean difference -0.20 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06), and LDL cholesterol levels (mean difference -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06) but not on triglyceride levels (mean difference 0.00 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05), and there was a very small but statistically significant decrease rather than increase in HDL levels with increased fibre intake (mean difference -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01). Fewer studies (10 trials, 661 participants randomised) reported blood pressure outcomes where there is a significant effect of increased fibre consumption on diastolic blood pressure (mean difference -1.77 mmHg, 95% CI -2.61 to -0.92) whilst there is a reduction in systolic blood pressure with fibre but this does not reach statistical significance (mean difference -1.92 mmHg, 95% CI -4.02 to 0.19). There did not appear to be any subgroup effects by the nature of the type of intervention (fibre supplements or provision of foods/advice to increase fibre consumption) or the type of fibre (soluble/insoluble) although the number of studies contributing to each subgroup were small. All analyses need to be viewed with caution given the risks of bias observed for total cholesterol and the statistical heterogeneity observed for systolic blood pressure. Adverse events, where reported, appeared to mostly reflect mild to moderate gastrointestinal side-effects and these were generally reported more in the fibre intervention groups than the control groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nStudies were short term and therefore did not report on our primary outcomes, CVD clinical events. The pooled analyses for CVD risk factors suggest reductions in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol with increased fibre intake, and reductions in diastolic blood pressure. There were no obvious effects of subgroup analyses by type of intervention or fibre type but the number of studies included in each of these analyses were small. Risk of bias was unclear in the majority of studies and high for some quality domains so results need to be interpreted cautiously. There is a need for longer term, well-conducted RCTs to determine the effects of fibre type (soluble versus insoluble) and administration (supplements versus foods) on CVD events and risk factors for the primary prevention of CVD.\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": "Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a group of conditions affecting the heart and blood vessels. CVD is a global burden and varies between regions, and this variation has been linked in part to dietary factors. Such factors are important because they can be modified to help with CVD prevention and management.This review assessed the effectiveness of increased fibre intake as a supplement or in food stuffs in reducing cardiovascular death, all-cause death, non-fatal endpoints (such as heart attacks, strokes and angina) and CVD risk factors in healthy adults and adults at high risk of CVD."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23685
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to detrimental consequences to people with this disorder and others. Worldwide, the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (30-day prevalence of at least one occasion of 60 g of pure alcohol intake among current drinkers) is estimated at 20% and the prevalence of AUD at 5% of the adult general population, with highest prevalence in Europe and North America. Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating people with AUD.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of baclofen on achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in people with AUD compared to placebo, no treatment or any other pharmacological relapse prevention treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 22 November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for AUD treatment with placebo, no treatment or other treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. relapse, 2. frequency of use, 3. amount of use, 4. adverse events, 5. dropouts from treatment and 6. dropouts from treatment due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 7. craving, 8. anxiety, 9. depression and 10. frequency of most relevant adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 17 RCTs (1818 participants) with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th edition criteria. Mean age was 46.5 years and 70% were men. Ten studies compared baclofen to placebo or another medication; seven compared two baclofen doses to placebo or another medication. Globally, 15 studies compared baclofen to placebo, two baclofen to acamprosate and two baclofen to naltrexone. In 16 studies, participants received psychosocial treatments.\nWe judged most studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias.\nTen studies detoxified participants before treatment; in seven studies, participants were still drinking at the beginning of treatment. Treatment duration was 12 weeks for 15 RCTs and longer in two studies. Baclofen daily dose was 30 mg to 300 mg: 10 RCTs used low doses (30 mg or less); eight RCTs medium doses (above 30 and 100 mg or less) and four RCTs high doses (above 100 mg).\nCompared to placebo, moderate-certainty evidence found that baclofen probably decreases the risk to relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.99; 12 studies, 1057 participants). This result was confirmed among detoxified participants but not among other subgroups of participants.\nHigh-certainty evidence found that baclofen increases the percentage of days abstinent (mean difference (MD) 9.07, 95% CI 3.30 to 14.85; 16 studies, 1273 participants). This result was confirmed among all subgroups of participants except non-detoxified or those who received medium doses.\nThere was no difference between baclofen and placebo in the other primary outcomes: heavy drinking days (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.18, 95% CI −0.48 to 0.11; 13 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of drinks per drinking days (MD −0.45, 95% CI −1.20 to 0.30; 9 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; 10 studies, 738 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 17 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 16 studies, 1499 participants; high-certainty evidence). These results were confirmed by subgroup analyses except than for the dropouts that resulted lower among participants who received high doses of baclofen and studies longer than 12 weeks.\nCompared to placebo, there was no difference in craving (SMD −0.16, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.04; 17 studies, 1275 participants), anxiety (MD −0.01, 95% CI −0.14 to 0.11; 15 studies, 1123 participants) and depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI −0.12 to 0.27; 11 studies, 1029 participants).\nConcerning the specific adverse events, baclofen increases fatigue, dizziness, somnolence/sedation, dry mouth, paraesthesia and muscle spasms/rigidity. There was no difference in the other adverse events.\nCompared to acamprosate, one study (60 participants) found no differences in any outcomes but the evidence was very uncertain: relapse (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; very low-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.69; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-certainty evidence) and craving (MD 5.80, 95% CI −11.84 to 23.44); and all the adverse events evaluated.\nCompared to naltrexone, baclofen may increase the risk of relapse (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.56; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and decrease the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (60 participants) found no difference between baclofen and naltrexone in the dropouts at the end of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; very low-certainty evidence), craving (MD 2.08, 95% CI −3.71 to 7.87), and all the adverse events evaluated.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBaclofen likely reduces the risk of relapse to any drinking and increases the percentage of abstinent days, mainly among detoxified participants. It does not increase the number of participants with at least one adverse event, those who dropout for any reason or due to adverse events. It probably does not reduce number of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per drinking days. Current evidence suggests that baclofen may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence. The results of comparisons of baclofen with acamprosate and naltrexone were mainly based on only one study.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages of the review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence about the effectiveness and safety of baclofen for treating people with alcohol use disorder (AUD) in order to achieve and maintain abstinence (stopping drinking) or reduce alcohol consumption.\nCurrent evidence suggests that it may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence, particularly in people who are already detoxified. The results of comparisons with other medications were mainly based on a single study and do not allow us to draw conclusions."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23686
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe scientific literature examining effective treatments for opioid dependent adults clearly indicates that pharmacotherapy is a necessary and acceptable component of effective treatments for opioid dependence. Nevertheless, no studies have been published that systematically assess the effectiveness of the pharmacological detoxification among adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of any detoxification treatment alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention compared with no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions on completion of treatment, reducing the use of substances and improving health and social status.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), PubMed (January 1966 to January 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2014), CINHAL (January 1982 to January 2014), Web of Science (1991-January 2014) and reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled clinical trials comparing any pharmacological interventions alone or associated with psychosocial intervention aimed at detoxification with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial intervention in adolescents (13 to 18 years).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration\nMain results\nTwo trials involving 190 participants were included. One trial compared buprenorphine with clonidine for detoxification. No difference was found for drop out: risk ratio (RR) 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20 to 1.04) and acceptability of treatment: withdrawal score mean difference (MD): 3.97 (95% CI -1.38 to 9.32). More participants in the buprenorphine group initiated naltrexone treatment: RR 11.00 (95% CI 1.58 to 76.55), quality of evidence moderate.\nThe other trial compared maintenance treatment versus detoxification treatment: buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance versus buprenorphine detoxification. For drop out the results were in favour of maintenance treatment: RR 2.67 (95% CI 1.85, 3.86), as well as for results at follow-up RR 1.36 [95% CI 1.05to 1.76); no differences for use of opiate, quality of evidence low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is difficult to draw conclusions on the basis of two trials with few participants. Furthermore, the two studies included did not consider the efficacy of methadone that is still the most frequent drug utilised for the treatment of opioid withdrawal. One possible reason for the lack of evidence could be the difficulty in conducting trials with young people due to practical and ethical reasons.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Detoxification treatment for heroin dependents adolescents\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": ""
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23687
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCataract is the leading cause of blindness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and the prevalence is inequitably distributed between and within countries. Interventions have been undertaken to improve cataract surgical services, however, the effectiveness of these interventions on promoting equity is not known.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects on equity of interventions to improve access to cataract services for populations with cataract blindness (and visual impairment) in LMICs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 12 April 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 12 April 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 12 April 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 12 April 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 12 April 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 12 April 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that reported on strategies to improve access to cataract services in LMICs using the following study designs: randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. Included studies were conducted in LMICs, and were targeted at disadvantaged populations, or disaggregated outcome data by 'PROGRESS-Plus' factors (Place of residence; Race/ethnicity/ culture/ language; Occupation; Gender/sex; Religion; Education; Socio-economic status; Social capital/networks. The 'Plus' component includes disability, sexual orientation and age).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors (JR and JP) independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed them for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible, so included studies were synthesised in table and text.\nMain results\nFrom a total of 2865 studies identified in the search, two met our eligibility criteria, both of which were cluster-RCTs conducted in rural China. The way in which the trials were conducted means that the risk of bias is unclear. In both studies, villages were randomised to be either an intervention or control group. Adults identified with vision-impairing cataract, following village-based vision and eye health assessment, either received an intervention to increase uptake of cataract surgery (if their village was an intervention group), or to receive 'standard care' (if their village was a control group).\nOne study (n = 434), randomly allocated 26 villages or townships to the intervention, which involved watching an informational video and receiving counselling about cataract and cataract surgery, while the control group were advised that they had decreased vision due to cataract and it could be treated, without being shown the video or receiving counselling. There was low-certainty evidence that providing information and counselling had no effect on uptake of referral to the hospital (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.67, 1 RCT, 434 participants) and little or no effect on the uptake of surgery (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 434 participants). We assessed the level of evidence to be of low-certainty for both outcomes, due to indirectness of evidence and imprecision of results.\nThe other study (n = 355, 24 towns randomised) included three intervention arms: free surgery; free surgery plus reimbursement of transport costs; and free surgery plus free transport to and from the hospital. These were compared to the control group, which was reminded to use the \"low-cost\" (˜USD 38) surgical service. There was low-certainty evidence that surgical fee waiver with/without transport provision or reimbursement increased uptake of surgery (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.31, 1 RCT, 355 participants). We assessed the level of evidence to be of low-certainty due to indirectness of evidence and imprecision of results.\nNeither of the studies reported our primary outcome of change in prevalence of cataract blindness, or other outcomes such as cataract surgical coverage, surgical outcome, or adverse effects. Neither study disaggregated outcomes by social subgroups to enable further assessment of equity effects. We sought data from both studies and obtained data from one; the information video and counselling intervention did not have a differential effect across the PROGRESS-Plus categories with available data (place of residence, gender, education level, socioeconomic status and social capital).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence on the effect on equity of interventions to improve access to cataract services in LMICs is limited. We identified only two studies, both conducted in rural China. Assessment of equity effects will be improved if future studies disaggregate outcomes by relevant social subgroups. To assist with assessing generalisability of findings to other settings, robust data on contextual factors are also needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The Cochrane researchers found two relevant studies. Both studies were from China and took place in a rural area. One study gave people additional information and counselling and compared this with giving no additional information or counselling. The other study looked at providing free cataract surgery, and help with the costs of transport to hospital, compared with low-cost cataract surgery and no help with transport. The findings were as follows.\n• Offering more information or counselling may not improve referral and uptake of surgery (low-certainty evidence).\n• Offering free cataract surgery may increase the uptake of surgery (low-certainty evidence).\n• There was no evidence on what happens to the levels of cataract in the community."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23688
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPharmacological interventions are frequently used for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to manage behaviours of concern, including irritability, aggression, and self-injury. Some pharmacological interventions might help treat some behaviours of concern, but can also have adverse effects (AEs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and AEs of pharmacological interventions for managing the behaviours of irritability, aggression, and self-injury in ASD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and two trials registers up to June 2022. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies, and contacted study authors, experts and pharmaceutical companies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of ASD, that compared any pharmacological intervention to an alternative drug, standard care, placebo, or wait-list control.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were behaviours of concern in ASD, (irritability, aggression and self-injury); and AEs. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, and tolerability and acceptability. Two review authors independently assessed each study for risk of bias, and used GRADE to judge the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 131 studies involving 7014 participants in this review. We identified 26 studies as awaiting classification and 25 as ongoing. Most studies involved children (53 studies involved only children under 13 years), children and adolescents (37 studies), adolescents only (2 studies) children and adults (16 studies), or adults only (23 studies). All included studies compared a pharmacological intervention to a placebo or to another pharmacological intervention.\nAtypical antipsychotics versus placebo\nAt short-term follow−up (up to 6 months), atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability compared to placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.25 to −0.55, 12 studies, 973 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which may indicate a large effect. However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in aggression between groups (SMD −0.44, 95% CI −0.89 to 0.01; 1 study, 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Atypical antipsychotics may also reduce self-injury (SMD −1.43, 95% CI −2.24 to −0.61; 1 study, 30 participants; low-certainty evidence), possibly indicating a large effect.\nThere may be higher rates of neurological AEs (dizziness, fatigue, sedation, somnolence, and tremor) in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear evidence of an effect on other neurological AEs. Increased appetite may be higher in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but we found no clear evidence of an effect on other metabolic AEs. There was no clear evidence of differences between groups in musculoskeletal or psychological AEs.\nNeurohormones versus placebo\nAt short-term follow-up, neurohormones may have minimal to no clear effect on irritability when compared to placebo (SMD −0.18, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.00; 8 studies; 466 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. No data were reported for aggression or self -injury.\nNeurohormones may reduce the risk of headaches slightly in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of an effect of neurohormones on any other neurological AEs, nor on any psychological, metabolic, or musculoskeletal AEs (low- and very low-certainty evidence).\nAttention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related medications versus placebo\nAt short-term follow-up, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly (SMD −0.20, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.01; 10 studies, 400 participants; low-certainty evidence), which may indicate a small effect. However, there was no clear evidence that ADHD-related medications have an effect on self-injury (SMD −0.62, 95% CI −1.63 to 0.39; 1 study, 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for aggression.\nRates of neurological AEs (drowsiness, emotional AEs, fatigue, headache, insomnia, and irritability), metabolic AEs (decreased appetite) and psychological AEs (depression) may be higher in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for any other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for musculoskeletal AEs.\nAntidepressants versus placebo\nAt short-term follow-up, there was no clear evidence that antidepressants have an effect on irritability (SMD −0.06, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.18; 3 studies, 267 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data for aggression or self-injury were reported or could be included in the analysis.\nRates of metabolic AEs (decreased energy) may be higher in participants receiving antidepressants (very low-certainty evidence), although no other metabolic AEs showed clear evidence of a difference. Rates of neurological AEs (decreased attention) and psychological AEs (impulsive behaviour and stereotypy) may also be higher in the intervention group (very low-certainty evidence) although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of any difference in the other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence), nor between groups in musculoskeletal AEs (very low-certainty evidence).\nRisk of bias\nWe rated most of the studies across the four comparisons at unclear overall risk of bias due to having multiple domains rated as unclear, very few rated as low across all domains, and most having at least one domain rated as high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence suggests that atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly, and neurohormones may have little to no effect on irritability in the short term in people with ASD. There was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may reduce self-injury in the short term, although the evidence is uncertain. There was no clear evidence that antidepressants had an effect on irritability. There was also little to no difference in aggression between atypical antipsychotics and placebo, or self-injury between ADHD-related medications and placebo. However, there was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may result in a large reduction in self-injury, although the evidence is uncertain. No data were reported (or could be used) for self-injury or aggression for neurohormones versus placebo. Studies reported a wide range of potential AEs. Atypical antipsychotics and ADHD-related medications in particular were associated with an increased risk of metabolic and neurological AEs, although the evidence is uncertain for atypical antipsychotics and very uncertain for ADHD-related medications. The other drug classes had minimal or no associated AEs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How are behaviours of concern managed?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Behaviours of concern are frequently managed with various types of medications that have been developed to treat other conditions. This means that their effectiveness for behaviours of concern is largely unknown, and they may cause serious and varied unwanted effects that affect all parts of the body. For example:\n• the heart and lungs;\n• the stomach and digestive system;\n• the immune system;\n• movement, joints and bones; and\n• mood and emotion."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23689
|
[
{
"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: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "One in 10 newborns need some resuscitation (first aid given when breathing or a heartbeat is not detected) at birth. There are many different newborn resuscitation programmes but the effectiveness of these programmes in decreasing deaths or brain injury due to lack of oxygen has not been reviewed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23690
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nContraceptive implants are one of the most effective contraceptive methods, providing a long duration of pregnancy protection and a high safety profile. Hence this method is suitable for optimizing the interpregnancy interval, especially for women undergoing abortion.\nWomen who have had abortions are at high risk of rapid repeat pregnancies. Provision of effective contraception at the time of an abortion visit can be a key strategy to increase access and uptake of contraception. A review of the evidence was needed to evaluate progestin-releasing implants for immediate use at the time of abortion, including whether immediate placement impacts the effectiveness of medical abortion, which relies on antiprogestogens.\nObjectives\nTo compare contraceptive implant initiation rates, contraceptive effectiveness, and adverse outcomes associated with immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implants following abortion.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status up to September 2019, with an update search in March 2021. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health (Ovid), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We examined the reference lists of pertinent articles to identify other studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implant for contraception following abortion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard procedures recommended by Cochrane. To identify potentially relevant studies, two review authors (JS, LS) independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the search results, assessed trials for risk of bias, and extracted data. We computed the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous variables.\nMain results\nWe found three RCTs including a total of 1162 women. Our GRADE assessment of the overall certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.\nUtilization rate at six months may be slightly higher for immediate compared with delayed insertion (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 3 RCTs; 1103 women; I2 = 62%; low certainty evidence). Unintended pregnancy within six months after abortion was probably lower with immediate insertion compared with delayed insertion (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77; 3 RCTs; 1029 women; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Immediate insertion of contraceptive implants probably improves the initiation rate compared to delayed insertion following medical abortion (RR 1.26 for medical abortion, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.32; 2 RCTs; 1014 women; I2 = 89%; moderate certainty evidence) and may also improve initiation following surgical abortion (RR 2.32 for surgical abortion, 95% CI 1.79 to 3.01; 1 RCT; 148 women; I2 = not applicable; low certainty evidence). We did not pool results for the implant initiation outcome over both abortion types because of very high statistical heterogeneity.\nFor medical termination of pregnancy, we found there is probably little or no difference between immediate and delayed insertion in overall failure of medical abortion (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.40; 2 RCTs; 1001 women; I2 = 68%;moderate certainty evidence).\nThere may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion on rates of abnormal bleeding at one month after abortion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.14; 1 RCT; 462 women; I2 = not applicable; low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nProvision of progestin-releasing implants concurrently with abortifacient agents likely has little or no negative impact on overall failure rate of medical abortion. Immediate insertion probably improves the initiation rate of contraceptive implant, as well as unintended pregnancy rate within six months after abortion, compared to delayed insertion. There may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion approaches in bleeding adverse effects at one month after abortion.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"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 moderate to very low. Further good-quality, well-designed randomized controlled trials will provide meaningful results on the rates of unintended pregnancy, and side effects following contraceptive implant placement at the same visit as abortion, compared to insertion within six weeks after."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23691
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is common in infants, and feed thickeners are often used to manage it in infants as they are simple to use and perceived to be harmless. However, conflicting evidence exists to support the use of feed thickeners.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the use of feed thickeners in infants up to six months of age with GOR in terms of reduction in a) signs and symptoms of GOR, b) reflux episodes on pH probe monitoring or intraluminal impedance or a combination of both, or c) histological evidence of oesophagitis.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 22 November 2016), Embase (1980 to 22 November 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 22 November 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials if they examined the effects of feed thickeners as compared to unthickened feeds (no treatment or placebo) in treating GOR in term infants up to six months of age or six months of corrected gestational age for those born preterm.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified eligible studies from the literature search. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessments of the eligible studies. Differences in opinion were resolved by discussion with a third review author, and consensus was reached among all three review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nEight trials recruiting a total of 637 infants met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The infants included in the review were mainly formula-fed term infants. The trials were of variable methodological quality. Formula-fed term infants with GOR on feed thickeners had nearly two fewer episodes of regurgitation per day (mean difference -1.97 episodes per day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.32 to -1.61; 6 studies, 442 infants, moderate-certainty evidence) and were 2.5 times more likely to be asymptomatic from regurgitation at the end of the intervention period (risk ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.51; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 5, 95% CI 4 to 13; 2 studies, 186 infants, low-certainty evidence) when compared to infants with GOR on unthickened feeds. No studies reported failure to thrive as an outcome. We found low-certainty evidence based on 2 studies recruiting 116 infants that use of feed thickeners improved the oesophageal pH probe parameters of reflux index (i.e. percentage of time pH < 4), number of reflux episodes lasting longer than 5 minutes, and duration of longest reflux episode. No major side effects were reported with the use of feed thickeners. Information was insufficient to conclude which type of feed thickener is superior.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGastro-oesophageal reflux is a physiological self resolving phenomenon in infants that does not necessarily require any treatment. However, we found moderate-certainty evidence that feed thickeners should be considered if regurgitation symptoms persist in term bottle-fed infants. The reduction of two episodes of regurgitation per day is likely to be of clinical significance to caregivers. Due to the limited information available, we were unable to assess the use of feed thickeners in infants who are breastfeeding or preterm nor could we conclude which type of feed thickener is superior.\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 for the effect of feed thickener on gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) in babies up to six months of age."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23692
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSkeletal muscle wasting and weakness are significant complications of critical illness, associated with degree of illness severity and periods of reduced mobility during mechanical ventilation. They contribute to the profound physical and functional deficits observed in survivors. These impairments may persist for many years following discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) and can markedly influence health-related quality of life. Rehabilitation is a key strategy in the recovery of patients after critical illness. Exercise-based interventions are aimed at targeting this muscle wasting and weakness. Physical rehabilitation delivered during ICU admission has been systematically evaluated and shown to be beneficial. However, its effectiveness when initiated after ICU discharge has yet to be established.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of exercise rehabilitation programmes, initiated after ICU discharge, for functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in adult ICU survivors who have been mechanically ventilated longer than 24 hours.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid SP MEDLINE, Ovid SP EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCO host to 15 May 2014. We used a specific search strategy for each database. This included synonyms for ICU and critical illness, exercise training and rehabilitation. We searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted primary authors to obtain further information regarding potentially eligible studies. We also searched major clinical trials registries (Clinical Trials and Current Controlled Trials) and the personal libraries of the review authors. We applied no language or publication restriction. We reran the search in February 2015 and will deal with the three studies of interest when we update the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared an exercise intervention initiated after ICU discharge versus any other intervention or a control or ‘usual care’ programme in adult (≥ 18 years) survivors of critical illness.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included six trials (483 adult ICU participants). Exercise-based interventions were delivered on the ward in two studies; both on the ward and in the community in one study; and in the community in three studies. The duration of the intervention varied according to length of hospital stay following ICU discharge (up to a fixed duration of 12 weeks).\nRisk of bias was variable for all domains across all trials. High risk of bias was evident in all studies for performance bias, although blinding of participants and personnel in therapeutic rehabilitation trials can be pragmatically challenging. For other domains, at least half of the studies were at low risk of bias. One study was at high risk of selection bias, attrition bias and other sources of bias. Risk of bias was unclear for the remaining studies across domains. We decided not to undertake a meta-analysis because of variation in study design, types of interventions and outcome measurements. We present a narrative description of individual studies for each outcome.\nAll six studies assessed functional exercise capacity, although we noted wide variability in the nature of interventions, outcome measures and associated metrics and data reporting. Overall quality of the evidence was very low. Individually, three studies reported positive results in favour of the intervention. One study found a small short-term benefit in anaerobic threshold (mean difference (MD) 1.8 mL O2/kg/min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to 3.2; P value = 0.02). In a second study, both incremental (MD 4.7, 95% CI 1.69 to 7.75 watts; P value = 0.003) and endurance (MD 4.12, 95% CI 0.68 to 7.56 minutes; P value = 0.021) exercise testing results were improved with intervention. Finally self reported physical function increased significantly following use of a rehabilitation manual (P value = 0.006). Remaining studies found no effect of the intervention.\nSimilar variability was evident with regard to findings for the primary outcome of health-related quality of life. Only two studies evaluated this outcome. Individually, neither study reported differences between intervention and control groups for health-related quality of life due to the intervention. Overall quality of the evidence was very low.\nFour studies reported rates of withdrawal, which ranged from 0% to 26.5% in control groups, and from 8.2% to 27.6% in intervention groups. The quality of evidence for the effect of the intervention on withdrawal was low. Very low-quality evidence showed rates of adherence with the intervention. Mortality ranging from 0% to 18.8% was reported by all studies. The quality of evidence for the effect of the intervention on mortality was low. Loss to follow-up, as reported in all studies, ranged from 0% to 14% in control groups, and from 0% to 12.5% in intervention groups, with low quality of evidence. Only one non-mortality adverse event was reported across all participants in all studies (a minor musculoskeletal injury), and the quality of the evidence was low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt this time, we are unable to determine an overall effect on functional exercise capacity, or on health-related quality of life, of an exercise-based intervention initiated after ICU discharge for survivors of critical illness. Meta-analysis of findings was not appropriate because the number of studies and the quantity of data were insufficient. Individual study findings were inconsistent. Some studies reported a beneficial effect of the intervention on functional exercise capacity, and others did not. No effect on health-related quality of life was reported. Methodological rigour was lacking across several domains, influencing the quality of the evidence. Wide variability was noted in the characteristics of interventions, outcome measures and associated metrics and data reporting.\nIf further trials are identified, we may be able to determine the effects of exercise-based intervention following ICU discharge on functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life among survivors of critical illness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We were unable to determine an overall result for the effects of exercise-based interventions. Three studies reported improvement in functional exercise capacity following completion of the exercise programme, and the other three found no effects of treatment.\nOnly two studies measured patient-reported health-related quality of life, and both of these studies showed no effects related to treatment. Again, we were unable to reach an overall conclusion. No study included an evaluation of acceptance of the treatment by patients or the experience of patient participation in an exercise-based programme."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23693
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe first three years of a child's life are a key period of physical, physiological, cognitive and social development, and the caregiver-infant relationship in early infancy plays an important role in influencing these aspects of development. Specifically, caregiver attunement facilitates the move from coregulation to self-regulation; a parent's ability to understand their infant's behaviour as communication is a key part of this process. Early, brief interventions such as the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) or Neonatal Behavioral Observation (NBO) system are potential methods of improving outcomes for both infant and caregiver.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of the NBAS and NBO system for improving caregiver-infant interaction and related outcomes in caregivers and newborn babies. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the NBAS and NBO are more effective for particular groups of infants or parents, and to identify the factors associated with increased effectiveness (e.g. timing, duration, etc.).\nSearch methods\nIn September 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 12 other databases and four trials registers. We also handsearched reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and we contacted the Brazelton Institute and searched its websites to identify any ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that had used at least one standardised measure to assess the effects of the NBAS or NBO versus inactive control for improving outcomes for caregivers and their infants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewer authors independently assessed the records retrieved from the search. One reviewer extracted data, and a second checked them for accuracy. We presented the results for each outcome in each study as standardised mean differences (SMDs) or as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When appropriate, we combined the results in a meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified and included 16 RCTs in this review: 13 assessing the NBAS and 3 the NBO for improving outcomes in 851 randomised participants, including parents and their premature or newborn (aged 4 to 12 weeks) infants. All studies took place in the USA, and we judged all of them to be at high risk of bias.\nSeven studies involving 304 participants contributed data to one meta-analysis of the impact of the NBAS or NBO for caregiver-infant interaction, and the results suggest a significant, medium-sized difference between intervention and control groups (SMD −0.53, 95% CI −0.90 to −0.17; very low-quality evidence), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 51%). Subgroup analysis comparing the two types of programmes (i.e. NBAS and NBO) found a medium but non-significant effect for the NBAS (−0.49, 95% CI −0.99 to 0.00, 5 studies), with high levels of heterogeneity (I2 = 61%), compared with a significant, large effect size for the NBO (−0.69, 95% CI −1.18 to −0.20, 2 studies), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). A test for subgroup differences between the two models, however, was not significant. One study found a significant impact on the secondary outcome of caregiver knowledge (SMD −1.30, 95% CI −2.16 to −0.44; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of an impact on maternal depression. We did not identify any adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently only very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of the NBAS and NBO in terms of improving parent-infant interaction for mostly low-risk, first-time caregivers and their infants. Further research is underway regarding the effectiveness of the NBO and is necessary to corroborate these results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Authors' conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is currently very low-quality evidence of the effectiveness that the NBAS and NBO improve parent-infant interaction with low-risk, first-time parents and their infants. Ongoing studies with regard to the NBO will help to establish the accuracy of these results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23694
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nConvalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nTo identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity.\nWe excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology.\nTo assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.\nMain results\nIn this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed.\nIndividuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease\n29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text.\nConvalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone\nConvalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI −2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nConvalescent plasma versus standard plasma\nWe are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nConvalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin\nConvalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nIndividuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease\nWe identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma.\nConvalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone\nWe are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nConvalescent plasma versus standard plasma\nWe are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nThis is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "• We are very confident in the evidence for deaths from any cause, and worsening and improvement of patients’ condition in people with moderate to severe COVID-19, as the results are consistent and are from many high-quality studies.\n• Our confidence in the other evidence for people with moderate and severe, and mild COVID-19 is still limited, as we could not identify enough consistent results from a lot of studies.\n• We still have little evidence on quality of life and for people with mild disease, and none for people without COVID-19 symptoms."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23695
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIdiopathic hypersomnia is a disorder of excessive daytime sleepiness, often accompanied by long sleep times or pronounced difficulty in awakening, in the absence of a known cause. The optimal treatment strategy for idiopathic hypersomnia is currently unknown.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of medications for daytime sleepiness and related symptoms in individuals with idiopathic hypersomnia and, in particular, whether medications may: 1. reduce subjective measures of sleepiness; 2. reduce objective measures of sleepiness; 3. reduce symptoms of cognitive dysfunction; 4. improve quality of life; and 5. be associated with adverse events.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 4 February 2021: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 February 2021), and reference lists of articles. CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialized registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We previously searched the WHO ICTRP separately when loading of ICTRP records into CRS Web was temporarily suspended.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized studies comparing any medication to placebo, another medication, or a behavioral intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We contacted study authors for additional data. We collected data on adverse events from the included trials.\nMain results\nWe included three trials, with a total of 112 participants. Risk of bias was low for the included studies. Two pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials compared modafinil with placebo, involving 102 participants, nearly all of whom had idiopathic hypersomnia without long sleep time. Modafinil significantly improved self-reported sleepiness on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale by 5.08 points more than placebo (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.01 to 7.16; 2 studies, 101 participants; high-certainty evidence). Modafinil also significantly improved disease severity on the Clinical Global Impression of Severity scale by 1.02 points (95% CI 0.11 to 1.93; 1 study, 30 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and resulted in a greater proportion of participants who were \"much improved\" or \"very much improved\" on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (odds ratio (OR) for improvement 5.14, 95% CI 1.76 to 15.00; 1 study, 70 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Ability to remain awake on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test was significantly improved with modafinil, by 4.74 minutes more than with placebo (95% CI 2.46 to 7.01; 2 studies, 99 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ratings of exhaustion and effectiveness/performance were improved with modafinil compared to placebo in one study. Number of naps per week was no different between modafinil and placebo across two studies. Participants receiving modafinil experienced more side effects, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.28 to 9.94; 2 studies, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nOne trial studying 20 participants with different disorders of sleepiness included 10 participants with idiopathic hypersomnia, with or without long sleep time, and compared clarithromycin to placebo. We only included the subset of trial data for those participants with idiopathic hypersomnia, per our protocol. There were no significant differences between clarithromycin and placebo for the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, psychomotor vigilance testing, sleep inertia, other subjective ratings, or side effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModafinil is effective for the treatment of several aspects of idiopathic hypersomnia symptomatology, based on studies predominantly including participants with idiopathic hypersomnia without long sleep times, with low risk of bias, and evidence certainty ranging from high to low. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether clarithromycin is effective for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia. There is a clear need for additional studies testing interventions for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia.\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 for the effects of different medications on daytime sleepiness in people with idiopathic hypersomnia."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23696
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2009. Millions of workers worldwide are exposed to noise levels that increase their risk of hearing disorders. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL; PubMed; Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; and OSH UPDATE to 3 October 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time-series (ITS) of non-clinical interventions under field conditions among workers to prevent or reduce noise exposure and hearing loss. We also collected uncontrolled case studies of engineering controls about the effect on noise exposure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We categorised interventions as engineering controls, administrative controls, personal hearing protection devices, and hearing surveillance.\nMain results\nWe included 29 studies. One study evaluated legislation to reduce noise exposure in a 12-year time-series analysis but there were no controlled studies on engineering controls for noise exposure. Eleven studies with 3725 participants evaluated effects of personal hearing protection devices and 17 studies with 84,028 participants evaluated effects of hearing loss prevention programmes (HLPPs).\nEffects on noise exposure\nEngineering interventions following legislation\nOne ITS study found that new legislation in the mining industry reduced the median personal noise exposure dose in underground coal mining by 27.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI) −36.1 to −19.3 percentage points) immediately after the implementation of stricter legislation. This roughly translates to a 4.5 dB(A) decrease in noise level. The intervention was associated with a favourable but statistically non-significant downward trend in time of the noise dose of −2.1 percentage points per year (95% CI −4.9 to 0.7, 4 year follow-up, very low-quality evidence).\nEngineering intervention case studies\nWe found 12 studies that described 107 uncontrolled case studies of immediate reductions in noise levels of machinery ranging from 11.1 to 19.7 dB(A) as a result of purchasing new equipment, segregating noise sources or installing panels or curtains around sources. However, the studies lacked long-term follow-up and dose measurements of workers, and we did not use these studies for our conclusions.\nHearing protection devices\nIn general hearing protection devices reduced noise exposure on average by about 20 dB(A) in one RCT and three CBAs (57 participants, low-quality evidence). Two RCTs showed that, with instructions for insertion, the attenuation of noise by earplugs was 8.59 dB better (95% CI 6.92 dB to 10.25 dB) compared to no instruction (2 RCTs, 140 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nAdministrative controls: information and noise exposure feedback\nOn-site training sessions did not have an effect on personal noise-exposure levels compared to information only in one cluster-RCT after four months' follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.14 dB; 95% CI −2.66 to 2.38). Another arm of the same study found that personal noise exposure information had no effect on noise levels (MD 0.30 dB(A), 95% CI −2.31 to 2.91) compared to no such information (176 participants, low-quality evidence).\nEffects on hearing loss\nHearing protection devices\nIn two studies the authors compared the effect of different devices on temporary threshold shifts at short-term follow-up but reported insufficient data for analysis. In two CBA studies the authors found no difference in hearing loss from noise exposure above 89 dB(A) between muffs and earplugs at long-term follow-up (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03 ), very low-quality evidence). Authors of another CBA study found that wearing hearing protection more often resulted in less hearing loss at very long-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence).\nCombination of interventions: hearing loss prevention programmes\nOne cluster-RCT found no difference in hearing loss at three- or 16-year follow-up between an intensive HLPP for agricultural students and audiometry only. One CBA study found no reduction of the rate of hearing loss (MD −0.82 dB per year (95% CI −1.86 to 0.22) for a HLPP that provided regular personal noise exposure information compared to a programme without this information.\nThere was very-low-quality evidence in four very long-term studies, that better use of hearing protection devices as part of a HLPP decreased the risk of hearing loss compared to less well used hearing protection in HLPPs (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.69). Other aspects of the HLPP such as training and education of workers or engineering controls did not show a similar effect.\nIn three long-term CBA studies, workers in a HLPP had a statistically non-significant 1.8 dB (95% CI −0.6 to 4.2) greater hearing loss at 4 kHz than non-exposed workers and the confidence interval includes the 4.2 dB which is the level of hearing loss resulting from 5 years of exposure to 85 dB(A). In addition, of three other CBA studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis, two showed an increased risk of hearing loss in spite of the protection of a HLPP compared to non-exposed workers and one CBA did not.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-quality evidence that implementation of stricter legislation can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Controlled studies of other engineering control interventions in the field have not been conducted. There is moderate-quality evidence that training of proper insertion of earplugs significantly reduces noise exposure at short-term follow-up but long-term follow-up is still needed.\nThere is very low-quality evidence that the better use of hearing protection devices as part of HLPPs reduces the risk of hearing loss, whereas for other programme components of HLPPs we did not find such an effect. The absence of conclusive evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness. Rather, it means that further research is very likely to have an important impact.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Stricter legislation might reduce noise levels. At the personal level, earmuffs and earplugs can reduce noise exposure to safe levels. However, instruction on how to put plugs into the ears is needed. Without instruction earplugs probably do not protect enough. Providing feedback to workers on noise exposure probably does not decrease noise. Engineering solutions such as better maintenance might lead to similar noise reduction as hearing protection. Better evaluation of these engineering solutions is needed.\nThe effects of hearing loss prevention programmes (HLPP) are unclear. Better use of hearing protection as part of a programme probably helps but does not fully protect against hearing loss. Improved implementation might provide better protection."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23697
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSystemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19.\nWe included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids.\nWe excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.\nMain results\nWe included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design.\nHospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19\nSystemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo\nWe included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies.\nSystemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nFor serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting).\nDifferent types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids\nWe identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study.\nWe included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg).\nHigh-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death).\nFor serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence.\nWe could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances.\nEquity-related subgroup analyses\nWe conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants.\nOutpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease\nThere are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSystemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data.\nWe identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review updates our previous review. The evidence is up-to-date to 6 January 2022."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23698
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFractures of the mandible (lower jaw) are a common occurrence and usually related to interpersonal violence or road traffic accidents. Mandibular fractures may be treated using open (surgical) and closed (non-surgical) techniques. Fracture sites are immobilized with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or other external or internal devices (i.e. plates and screws) to allow bone healing. Various techniques have been used, however uncertainty exists with respect to the specific indications for each approach.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review is to provide reliable evidence of the effects of any interventions either open (surgical) or closed (non-surgical) that can be used in the management of mandibular fractures, excluding the condyles, in adult patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 February 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 February 2013), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 7 April 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 7 April 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 7 April 2013). The reference lists of all trials identified were checked for further studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials evaluating the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. Any studies that compared different treatment approaches were included.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated to include both clinical and methodological factors.\nMain results\nTwelve studies, assessed as high (six) and unclear (six) risk of bias, comprising 689 participants (830 fractures), were included. Interventions examined different plate materials and morphology; use of one or two lag screws; microplate versus miniplate; early and delayed mobilization; eyelet wires versus Rapid IMF™ and the management of angle fractures with intraoral access alone or combined with a transbuccal approach. Patient-oriented outcomes were largely ignored and post-operative pain scores were inadequately reported. Unfortunately, only one or two trials with small sample sizes were conducted for each comparison and outcome. Our results and conclusions should therefore be interpreted with caution. We were able to pool the results for two comparisons assessing one outcome. Pooled data from two studies comparing two miniplates versus one miniplate revealed no significant difference in the risk of post-operative infection of surgical site (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% CI 0.41 to 4.22, P = 0.64, I2 = 0%). Similarly, no difference in post-operative infection between the use of two 3-dimensional (3D) and standard (2D) miniplates was determined (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.13, P = 0.81, I2 = 27%). The included studies involved a small number of participants with a low number of events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review illustrates that there is currently inadequate evidence to support the effectiveness of a single approach in the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. The lack of high quality evidence may be explained by clinical diversity, variability in assessment tools used and difficulty in grading outcomes with existing measurement tools. Until high level evidence is available, treatment decisions should continue to be based on the clinician's prior experience and the individual circumstances.\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": "The lower jaw (also known as the mandible) is an important bone that shapes the face, holds the lower teeth in place and is used to move the mouth, for talking and chewing food. Fractures are most often found in the part of the lower jaw that supports teeth (known as the body), the part where the jaw curves upwards into the neck (the angle), or at the knobbly-shaped joint found at the very top of the jaw bone (the condyle). Available treatments align and stabilize the fracture, allowing the bone to heal in the proper position. Treatments may or may not involve surgery.\nThis review, produced by the Cochrane Oral Health Group, examines different methods for treating fractures of the body and angle of the mandible in existing research and studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23699
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiological needs. Fortification of wheat flour is deemed a useful strategy to reduce anaemia in populations.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of wheat flour fortification with iron alone or with other vitamins and minerals on anaemia, iron status and health-related outcomes in populations over two years of age.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 21 other databases and two trials registers up to 21 July 2020, together with contacting key organisations to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cluster- or individually-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) carried out among the general population from any country, aged two years and above. The interventions were fortification of wheat flour with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients. We included trials comparing any type of food item prepared from flour fortified with iron of any variety of wheat\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed risks of bias. We followed Cochrane methods in this review.\nMain results\nOur search identified 3538 records, after removing duplicates. We included 10 trials, involving 3319 participants, carried out in Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Kuwait, Philippines, South Africa and Sri Lanka. We identified two ongoing studies and one study is awaiting classification. The duration of interventions varied from 3 to 24 months. One study was carried out among adult women and one trial among both children and nonpregnant women. Most of the included trials were assessed as low or unclear risk of bias for key elements of selection, performance or reporting bias.\nThree trials used 41 mg to 60 mg iron/kg flour, three trials used less than 40 mg iron/kg and three trials used more than 60 mg iron/kg flour. One trial used various iron levels based on type of iron used: 80 mg/kg for electrolytic and reduced iron and 40 mg/kg for ferrous fumarate.\nAll included studies contributed data for the meta-analyses.\nIron-fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients added versus wheat flour (no added iron) with the same other micronutrients added\nIron-fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients added versus wheat flour (no added iron) with the same other micronutrients added may reduce by 27% the risk of anaemia in populations (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.97; 5 studies, 2315 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain whether iron-fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients reduces iron deficiency (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.04; 3 studies, 748 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or increases haemoglobin concentrations (in g/L) (mean difference MD 2.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.80; 8 studies, 2831 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nNo trials reported data on adverse effects in children (including constipation, nausea, vomiting, heartburn or diarrhoea), except for risk of infection or inflammation at the individual level. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to the risk of Infection or inflammation at individual level as measured by C-reactive protein (CRP) (mean difference (MD) 0.04, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.11; 2 studies, 558 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIron-fortified wheat flour with other micronutrients added versus unfortified wheat flour (nil micronutrients added)\nIt is unclear whether wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients decreases anaemia (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.46; 2 studies, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably reduces the risk of iron deficiency (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99; 3 studies, 382 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether it increases average haemoglobin concentrations (MD 2.53, 95% CI −0.39 to 5.45; 4 studies, 532 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nNo trials reported data on adverse effects in children.\nNine out of 10 trials reported sources of funding, with most having multiple sources. Funding source does not appear to have distorted the results in any of the assessed trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFortification of wheat flour with iron (in comparison to unfortified flour, or where both groups received the same other micronutrients) may reduce anaemia in the general population above two years of age, but its effects on other outcomes are uncertain.\nIron-fortified wheat flour in combination with other micronutrients, in comparison with unfortified flour, probably reduces iron deficiency, but its effects on other outcomes are uncertain.\nNone of the included trials reported data on adverse side effects except for risk of infection or inflammation at the individual level. The effects of this intervention on other health outcomes are unclear. Future studies at low risk of bias should aim to measure all important outcomes, and to further investigate which variants of fortification, including the role of other micronutrients as well as types of iron fortification, are more effective, and for whom.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Our confidence in our results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our confidence is moderate to low that adding iron to flour probably reduces iron deficiency and anaemia. The studies appeared to show fewer people with iron deficiency and slightly higher haemoglobin levels associated with flour with added iron, but the results varied widely, so we are uncertain about the effect. These results might change if further evidence becomes available. We found limitations in the ways some of the studies were designed and conducted, and this could have affected their results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23700
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. The search was not limited by publication year or language, but trial inclusion required that 75% or more of participants had a normal intellectual quotient (IQ > 70). We assessed two primary outcomes, ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events, and three secondary outcomes, adverse events considered non-serious, general behaviour, and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment for each trial. Six review authors including two review authors from the original publication participated in the update in 2022. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Data from parallel-group trials and first-period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses. We undertook separate analyses using end-of-last period data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 212 trials (16,302 participants randomised); 55 parallel-group trials (8104 participants randomised), and 156 cross-over trials (8033 participants randomised) as well as one trial with a parallel phase (114 participants randomised) and a cross-over phase (165 participants randomised). The mean age of participants was 9.8 years ranging from 3 to 18 years (two trials from 3 to 21 years). The male-female ratio was 3:1. Most trials were carried out in high-income countries, and 86/212 included trials (41%) were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Methylphenidate treatment duration ranged from 1 to 425 days, with a mean duration of 28.8 days. Trials compared methylphenidate with placebo (200 trials) and with no intervention (12 trials). Only 165/212 trials included usable data on one or more outcomes from 14,271 participants.\nOf the 212 trials, we assessed 191 at high risk of bias and 21 at low risk of bias. If, however, deblinding of methylphenidate due to typical adverse events is considered, then all 212 trials were at high risk of bias.\nPrimary outcomes: methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.88 to −0.61; I² = 38%; 21 trials; 1728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of −10.58 (95% CI −12.58 to −8.72) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points). The minimal clinically relevant difference is considered to be a change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS. Methylphenidate may not affect serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 26 trials, 3673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.31 to 2.68).\nSecondary outcomes: methylphenidate may cause more adverse events considered non-serious versus placebo or no intervention (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; I² = 72%; 35 trials 5342 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.22 (CI 1.08 to 1.43). Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated general behaviour versus placebo (SMD −0.62, 95% CI −0.91 to −0.33; I² = 68%; 7 trials 792 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may not affect quality of life (SMD 0.40, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.83; I² = 81%; 4 trials, 608 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe majority of our conclusions from the 2015 version of this review still apply. Our updated meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate versus placebo or no-intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD. There may be no effects on serious adverse events and quality of life. Methylphenidate may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events considered non-serious, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite. However, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is very low and therefore the true magnitude of effects remain unclear.\nDue to the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the blinding of participants and outcome assessors is particularly challenging. To accommodate this challenge, an active placebo should be sought and utilised. It may be difficult to find such a drug, but identifying a substance that could mimic the easily recognised adverse effects of methylphenidate would avert the unblinding that detrimentally affects current randomised trials.\nFuture systematic reviews should investigate the subgroups of patients with ADHD that may benefit most and least from methylphenidate. This could be done with individual participant data to investigate predictors and modifiers like age, comorbidity, and ADHD subtypes.\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 results of the review is limited for several reasons. It was often possible for people in the studies to know which treatment the children were taking, which could influence the results. The reporting of the results was not complete in many studies and for some outcomes the results varied across studies. Studies were small and they used different scales for measuring symptoms. And most of the studies only lasted for a short period of time, making it impossible to assess the long-term effects of methylphenidate. Around 41% of studies were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23701
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) complicates approximately 2% of pregnancies and can be either spontaneous or iatrogenic in nature. Complications of PPROM include prematurity, chorioamnionitis, neonatal sepsis, limb position defects, respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary hypoplasia chronic lung disease, periventricular leukomalacia and intraventricular haemorrhage.\nA number of different sealing techniques have been employed which aim to restore a physical barrier against infection and encourage the re-accumulation of amniotic fluid. Routine use of sealants is currently not recommended due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support the safety and effectiveness of such interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of sealing techniques following PPROM against each other, or versus standard care (including no sealant), on maternal and neonatal outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different techniques for sealing preterm prelabour ruptured membranes. Cluster-randomised trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. We planned to include abstracts when sufficient information was provided.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included two studies (involving 141 women - with data from 124 women). We considered both studies as being at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible because the included studies examined different interventions (both in comparison with standard care) and reported on few, but different, outcomes. One study compared cervical adapter (mechanical sealing), and the other study examined an immunological membrane sealant. Neither of the included studies reported on this review's primary outcome of interest - perinatal mortality. Similarly, data were not reported for the majority of this review's secondary infant and maternal outcomes.\nCervical adapter (mechanical sealing) versus standard care (one study, data from 35 participants)\nNo data were reported for this review's primary outcome - perinatal mortality. Data were reported for few of this review's infant or maternal secondary outcomes.\nThere was no clear difference between the mechanical sealing group and the standard care control in relation to the incidence of neonatal sepsis (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 5.09 (very low-quality evidence)) or chorioamnionitis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.28 to 5.09 (very low-quality evidence)).\nOral immunological membrane sealant versus standard care (one study, data from 94 participants)\nNo data were available for perinatal mortality (this review's primary outcome) or for the majority of this review's infant and maternal secondary outcomes. Compared to standard care, the immunological membrane sealant was associated with a reduction in preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.68 (very low-quality evidence)) and a reduction in neonatal death (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.75 (very low-quality evidence)). However, there was no clear difference between groups in terms of neonatal sepsis (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46 (very low-quality evidence)) or respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46 (very low-quality evidence)).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to evaluate sealing procedures for PPROM. There were no data relating to this review's primary outcome (perinatal mortality) and the majority of our infant and maternal secondary outcomes were not reported in the two included studies.\nThere was limited evidence to suggest that an immunological membrane sealant was associated with a reduction in preterm birth at less than 37 weeks and neonatal death, but these results should be interpreted with caution as this is based on one small study, with a high risk of bias, and the intervention has not been tested in other studies.\nAlthough midtrimester PPROM is not a rare occurrence, there are only a small amount of published data addressing the benefits and risks of sealing procedures. Most of these studies are retrospective and cohort based and could therefore not be included in our data-analysis.\nThis review highlights the paucity of prospective randomised trials in this area. Current evidence provides limited information both on effectiveness and safety for the interventions described. Given the paucity of high-quality data, we recommend that future research efforts focus on the conduct of randomised trials assessing the effect of promising interventions that have been only evaluated to date in cohort studies (e.g. amniopatch). Future trials should address outcomes including perinatal mortality, preterm birth, neonatal death, respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal sepsis and developmental delay. They should also evaluate maternal outcomes including sepsis, mode of delivery, length of hospital stay and emotional well-being.\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": "In our study we assessed the different techniques used for resealing the waters. We aimed to compare the survival of babies affected with this condition before and after birth and look at the rates of complications in both the babies and mothers. We searched for trials (30 May 2016) and found two studies that compared treatments for resealing the membranes after they had broken. These trials involved 141 women in total and compared two completely different modes of treatment.\nOne trial compared the use of an oral immunological membrane sealant to stimulate the body’s immune system to mend the area where the seal has broken and the other trial placed a mechanical sealing device over the cervix (neck of the womb) to stop fluid leaking. Unfortunately, neither trial provided any data relating to death of the baby within the womb or in the first 28 days of life (perinatal mortality).\nThere was limited evidence to suggest that oral immunological membrane sealant was associated with a fewer babies being before 37 weeks’ gestation and a reduction in the number of babies that died within the first 28 days. However, these results are based on very low-quality evidence from one small trial (with data from 94 women) that we judged to be at a high risk of bias.\nThere was no clear difference between the mechanical sealing device group and the control group in relation to the number of babies who contracted a serious infection (neonatal sepsis) or chorioamnionitis (a bacterial infection that causes inflammation of the membranes surrounding the baby in the womb). Although these results are based on very low-quality evidence from one small trial (involving 35 women) judged to be at a high risk of bias."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23702
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe vicious cycle hypothesis for bronchiectasis predicts that bacterial colonisation of the respiratory tract perpetuates inflammatory change. This damages the mucociliary escalator, preventing bacterial clearance and allowing persistence of pro-inflammatory mediators. Conventional treatment with physiotherapy and intermittent antibiotics is believed to improve the condition of people with bronchiectasis, although no conclusive data show that these interventions influence the natural history of the condition. Various strategies have been tried to interrupt this cycle of infection and inflammation, including prolonging antibiotic treatment with the goal of allowing the airway mucosa to heal.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits of prolonged antibiotic therapy in the treatment of patients with bronchiectasis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and reference lists of identified articles. Searches were current as of February 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials examining the use of prolonged antibiotic therapy (for four or more weeks) in the treatment of bronchiectasis compared with placebo or usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors to ask for missing information.\nMain results\nEighteen trials met the inclusion criteria, randomly assigning a total of 1157 participants. Antibiotics were given for between four weeks and 83 weeks. Limited meta-analysis was possible because of the diversity of outcomes reported in these trials. Based on the number of participants with at least one exacerbation, the meta-analysis showed significant effects in favour of the intervention (odds ratio (OR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.52; P value < 0.00001), with events occurring in 271 per 1000 people in the intervention arm (95% CI 126 to 385) and in 546 per 1000 in the control population, based on evidence of moderate quality. A non-statistically significant reduction in hospitalisation favoured the use of prolonged antibiotics with a moderate quality grade of supporting evidence (37 per 1000 in the intervention arm (95% CI 13 to 96) and 87 per 1000 in control (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.11; P value = 0.08). Drug resistance developed in 36 of 220 participants taking antibiotics compared with 10 of 211 participants given placebo or standard therapy (OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.20 to 10.07; P value = 0.02), translating to natural frequencies of 155 per 1000 in the intervention arm (95% CI 59 to 346) and 50 per 1000 in the control arm. The intervention was well tolerated with no overall significant difference in withdrawal between treatment and placebo groups (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.49). Diarrhoea was commonly reported as an adverse event, particularly with an oral intervention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvailable evidence shows benefit associated with use of prolonged antibiotics in the treatment of patients with bronchiectasis, at least halving the odds of exacerbation (with 275 fewer exacerbations per every 1000 people treated in the antibiotic arm compared with the control arm) and hospitalisation (50 fewer hospitalisations per 1000 people in the antibiotic arm compared with the control arm). However, the risk of emerging drug resistance is increased more than threefold. This review is limited by diversity of trials and by evidence of moderate to low quality. Further randomised controlled trials with adequate power and standardised end points are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How did we answer the question?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We looked for all studies comparing prolonged antibiotic therapy versus usual care and/or a dummy medication (placebo)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23703
|
[
{
"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: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Vaccines can prevent shingles in healthy older adults."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23704
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is a recurrent illness with high rates of chronicity, treatment-resistance and significant economic impact. There is evidence in the literature that S-adenosyl methionine (SAMe), a naturally occurring compound in the human body, has antidepressant efficacy. This product may be an important addition to the armamentarium of antidepressant agents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of SAMe in comparison with placebo or antidepressants for the treatment of depression in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialised Register (CCMDCTR Studies and Reference Register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, international trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal (ICTRP). We checked reference lists, performed handsearching and contacted experts in the field. The CCMDCTR literature search was last updated on 5 February 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing SAMe with placebo or antidepressants in adults with a diagnosis of major depression.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently performed extraction of data and assessment of risk of bias. We contacted trialists of included studies for additional information.\nMain results\nThis systematic review included eight trials comparing SAMe with either placebo, imipramine, desipramine or escitalopram. We accepted trials that used SAMe as monotherapy or as add-on therapy to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and we accepted both oral and parenteral administration. The review involved 934 adults, of both sexes, from inpatient and outpatient settings.\nThe trials were at low risk of reporting bias. We judged the risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition bias as unclear or low, and one study was at high risk of attrition bias.\nThere was no strong evidence of a difference in terms of change in depressive symptoms from baseline to end of treatment between SAMe and placebo as monotherapy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.54 to 0.46; P = 0.29; 142 participants; 2 studies; very low quality evidence). There was also no strong evidence of a difference in terms of drop-out rates due to any reason between SAMe and placebo, when used as monotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; P = 0.52; 142 participants; 2 studies; low quality evidence).\nLow quality evidence showed that the change in depressive symptoms from baseline to end of treatment was similar between SAMe and imipramine, both as monotherapy (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.27; P = 0.82; 619 participants; 4 studies). There was also no strong evidence of a difference between SAMe and a tricyclic antidepressant in terms of drop-outs due to any reason (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.31; P = 0.2; 78 participants; 3 studies; very low quality evidence).\nThere was little evidence of a difference in terms of change in depressive symptoms from baseline to end of treatment between SAMe and escitalopram, both as monotherapy (MD 0.12, 95% CI -2.75 to 2.99; P = 0.93; 129 participants; 1 study; low quality evidence). There was no strong evidence of a difference between SAMe and escitalopram in terms of drop-outs due to any reason (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.16; P = 0.26; 129 participants; 1 study; low quality evidence).\nThere was low quality evidence that SAMe is superior to placebo as add-on to SSRIs in terms of change in depressive symptoms from baseline to end of treatment (MD -3.90, 95% CI -6.93 to -0.87; P = 0.01; 73 participants; 1 study). There was no strong evidence of a difference between SAMe and placebo as adjunctive therapy to an SSRI in terms of drop-outs due to any reason (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.56; P = 0.38; 73 participants; 1 study; very low quality evidence).\nFor all comparisons, secondary outcome measures of response and remission rates were consistent with these primary outcome measures.\nWith regard to all extractable measures of the acceptability of SAMe, the quality of the evidence was low to very low. SAMe was not different from placebo and established antidepressants. The exception was that compared to imipramine, fewer participants experienced troublesome adverse effects when treated with parenteral SAMe.\nThe specific adverse effects were not detailed in most of the included studies. There were two reports of mania/hypomania recorded for 441 participants in the SAMe arm.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the absence of high quality evidence and the inability to draw firm conclusions based on that evidence, the use of SAMe for the treatment of depression in adults should be investigated further. Future trials should be in the form of large randomised controlled clinical trials of high methodological quality, with particular attention given to randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding and the handling of missing data. Comparator antidepressants from all classes should be used. Adverse events should be detailed for each participant, bearing in mind that induction of mania is of particular interest.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched scientific databases for all randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) in adults with a diagnosis of major depression, where SAMe was compared to either placebo (a pretend treatment) or other antidepressant medicines (e.g. imipramine and escitalopram) carried out before February 2016.\nWe included eight studies involving 934 people in this review. There was no strong evidence of a difference in effectiveness between SAMe and imipramine or escitalopram when used alone. It was superior to placebo when used in combination with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants, but this evidence was of low quality. There was no significant difference in terms of effectiveness between SAMe and placebo alone, but again this evidence was of very low quality. The acceptability of SAMe did not differ from that of antidepressants or placebo. The exception was that fewer participants experienced side effects when treated with SAMe compared with imipramine. Though, the quality of the evidence for acceptability of SAMe was of low quality.\nLimitations of this review were that not all the relevant data could be obtained despite efforts to contact the authors and some of the included studies were of low quality."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23705
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti-VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for managing DMO.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 February 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravitreal anti-VEGF combined with intravitreal steroids versus intravitreal anti-VEGF alone, intravitreal steroids alone or macular laser alone for managing DMO. We included people with DMO of all ages and both sexes. We also included trials where both eyes from one participant received different treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.Two authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches against the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and one year. Secondary outcomes included change in central macular thickness (CMT), economic data and quality of life. We considered adverse effects including intraocular inflammation, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataract.\nMain results\nThere were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). Seven studies used the unlicensed anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab and one study used licensed ranibizumab. The study that used licensed ranibizumab had a unique design compared with the other studies in that included eyes had persisting DMO after anti-VEGF monotherapy and received three monthly doses of ranibizumab prior to allocation. The anti-VEGF agent was combined with intravitreal triamcinolone in six studies and with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant in two studies. The comparator group was anti-VEGF alone in all studies; two studies had an additional steroid monotherapy arm, another study had an additional macular laser photocoagulation arm. Whilst we judged these studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains, at least one domain was at unclear risk in all studies.\nWhen comparing anti-VEGF/steroid with anti-VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA (mean difference (MD) −2.29 visual acuity (VA) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) −6.03 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD 0.20 μm, 95% CI −37.14 to 37.53; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) at one year. There was very low-certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti-VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti-VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti-VEGF/steroid compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. There was low-certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti-VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).\nOne study compared anti-VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA (MD 4.00 VA letters 95% CI −2.70 to 10.70; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD −16.00 μm, 95% CI −68.93 to 36.93; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).\nOne study provided very low-certainty evidence comparing anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid monotherapy at one year. There was no evidence of a meaningful difference in BCVA between treatments at one year (MD 0 VA letters, 95% CI -6.1 to 6.1, low-certainty evidence). Likewise, there was no meaningful difference in the mean CMT at one year (MD - 9 μm, 95% CI -39.87μm to 21.87μm between the anti-VEGF/steroid group and the steroid group. There was very low-certainty evidence on raised IOP at one year comparing the anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid groups (Peto OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.55).\nNo included study reported impact of treatment on patients' quality of life or economic data. None of the studies reported any cases of endophthalmitis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCombination of intravitreal anti-VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low-certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti-VEGF plus steroid versus anti-VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit. The majority of the evidence comes from studies of bevacizumab and triamcinolone used as primary therapy for DMO. There is limited evidence from studies using licensed intravitreal anti-VEGF agents plus licensed intravitreal steroid implants with at least one year follow-up. It is not known whether treatment response is different in eyes that are phakic and pseudophakic at baseline.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cochrane Review authors searched for studies that had been published up to 21 February 2018."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23706
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCentral retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a relatively common retinal vascular disorder in which macular oedema may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. Until recently there has been no treatment of proven benefit, but growing evidence supports the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGF therapies for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to CRVO.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1950 to October 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2013), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to October 2013), OpenGrey, OpenSIGLE (January 1950 to October 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S). There were no language or date restrictions in the electronic search for trials. The electronic databases and clinical trials registers were last searched on 29th October 2013.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF agents of any dose or duration to sham injection or no treatment. We focused on studies that included individuals of any age or gender and a minimum of six months follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a gain in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants with a loss of 15 letters or more of BCVA, the mean change from baseline BCVA, the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT), the number and type of complications or adverse outcomes, and the number of additional interventions administered. Where available, we also presented quality of life and economic data.\nMain results\nWe found six RCTs that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These RCTs included 937 participants and compared outcomes at six months to sham injection for four anti-VEGF agents: aflibercept (VEGF Trap-Eye, Eylea), bevacizumab (Avastin), pegaptanib sodium (Macugen) and ranibizumab (Lucentis). Three trials were conducted in Norway, Sweden and the USA, and three trials were multicentre, one including centres in the USA, Canada, India, Israel, Argentina and Columbia, a second including centres in the USA, Australia, France, Germany, Israel, and Spain, and a third including centres in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Australia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. We performed meta-analysis on three key visual outcomes, using data from up to six trials. High-quality evidence from six trials revealed that participants receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment were 2.71 times more likely to gain at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to participants treated with sham injections (risk ratio (RR) 2.71; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.10 to 3.49). High-quality evidence from five trials suggested anti-VEGF treatment was associated with an 80% lower risk of losing at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to sham injection (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.34). Moderate-quality evidence from three trials (481 participants) revealed that the mean reduction from baseline to six months in central retinal thickness was 267.4 µm (95% CI 211.4 µm to 323.4 µm) greater in participants treated with anti-VEGF than in participants treated with sham. The meta-analyses demonstrate that treatment with anti-VEGF is associated with a clinically meaningful gain in vision at six months. One trial demonstrated sustained benefit at 12 months compared to sham. No significant ocular or systemic safety concerns were identified in this time period.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to no treatment, repeated intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents in eyes with CRVO macular oedema improved visual outcomes at six months. All agents were relatively well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse effects in the short term. Future trials should address the relative efficacy and safety of the anti-VEGF agents and other treatments, including intravitreal corticosteroids, for longer-term outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Overall, treatment with anti-VEGF agents increased the chance of a significant gain in vision (at least 3 lines on the vision chart) at six months by more than two and a half times, compared to no treatment. Furthermore, the risk of losing significant vision (at least 3 lines on the vision chart) was reduced by 80% in those receiving anti-VEGF therapy compared to those receiving no treatment. No significant safety concerns were identified at six or 12 months, but the available studies do not allow a conclusion about their long-term effectiveness and safety to be drawn. Nevertheless, the availability of anti-VEGF treatment for CRVO macular oedema represents an important advance in the clinical management options for this sight-threatening disease."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23707
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGlutamine is a conditionally essential amino acid. Endogenous biosynthesis may be insufficient for tissue needs in states of metabolic stress. Evidence exists that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes in critically ill adults. It has been suggested that glutamine supplementation may also benefit preterm infants.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of glutamine supplementation on mortality and morbidity in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Maternity and Infant Care (to December 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in preterm infants at any time from birth to discharge from hospital.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical relative risk, typical risk difference and weighted mean difference.\nMain results\nWe identified 12 randomised controlled trials in which a total of 2877 preterm infants participated. Six trials assessed enteral glutamine supplementation and six trials assessed parenteral glutamine supplementation. The trials were generally of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis did not find an effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality (typical relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.17; risk difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.02) or major neonatal morbidities including the incidence of invasive infection or necrotising enterocolitis. Three trials that assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes in children aged 18 to 24 months and beyond did not find any effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available trial data do not provide evidence that glutamine supplementation confers important benefits for preterm 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": "Glutamine is an important nutrient for growth and development and may be especially important in protecting preterm infants from infections and gut problems that cause death and disability. We sought evidence that giving preterm infants extra glutamine improves important outcomes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23708
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBiologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.\nObjectives\nTo compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.\nMethods\nIn June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).\nMain results\nNineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).\nLess than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years).\nBiologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))\nIn traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).\nWe did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision.\nBiologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)\nThere was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.\nTNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.\nWe conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Biologic monotherapy (TNF biologics) versus MTX\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "35 people out of 100 who were on a biologic experienced improvement in RA compared to 37 people out of 100 who were on MTX (2% reduction)"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23709
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLand-based exercise training improves exercise capacity and quality of life in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Water-based exercise training is an alternative mode of physical exercise training that may appeal to the older population attending pulmonary rehabilitation programmes, those who are unable to complete land-based exercise programmes and people with COPD with comorbid physical and medical conditions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of water-based exercise training in people with COPD.\nSearch methods\nA search of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, was conducted (from inception to August 2013). Handsearching was done to identify further qualifying studies from reference lists of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nReview authors included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which water-based exercise training of at least four weeks' duration was compared with no exercise training or any other form of exercise training in people with COPD. Swimming was excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nFive studies were included with a total of 176 participants (71 people participated in water-based exercise training and 54 in land-based exercise training; 51 completed no exercise training). All studies compared supervised water-based exercise training versus land-based exercise training and/or no exercise training in people with COPD (with average forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) %predicted ranging from 39% to 62%). Sample sizes ranged from 11 to 53 participants. The exercise training programmes lasted from four to 12 weeks, and the mean age of participants ranged from 57 to 73 years. A moderate risk of bias was due to lack of reporting of randomisation, allocation and blinding procedures in some studies, as well as small sample sizes.\nCompared with no exercise, water-based exercise training improved the six-minute walk distance (mean difference (MD) 62 metres; 95% confidence interval (CI) 44 to 80 metres; three studies; 99 participants; moderate quality evidence), the incremental shuttle walk distance (MD 50 metres; 95% CI 20 to 80 metres; one study; 30 participants; high quality evidence) and the endurance shuttle walk distance (MD 371 metres; 95% CI 121 to 621 metres; one study; 30 participants; high quality evidence). Quality of life was also improved after water-based exercise training compared with no exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.97, 95% CI -0.37 to -1.57; two studies; 49 participants; low quality evidence). Compared with land-based exercise training, water-based exercise training did not significantly change the six-minute walk distance (MD 11 metres; 95% CI -11 to 33 metres; three studies; 62 participants; moderate quality evidence) or the incremental shuttle walk distance (MD 9 metres; 95% CI -15 to 34 metres; two studies; 59 participants; low quality evidence). However, the endurance shuttle walk distance improved following water-based exercise training compared with land-based exercise training (MD 313 metres; 95% CI 232 to 394 metres; two studies; 59 participants; moderate quality evidence). No significant differences were found between water-based exercise training and land-based exercise training for quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire or by three of four domains of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRDQ); however, the fatigue domain of the CRDQ showed a statistically significant difference in favour of water-based exercise (MD -3.00; 95% CI -5.26 to -0.74; one study; 30 participants). Only one study reported long-term outcomes after water-based exercise training for quality of life and body composition, and no significant change was observed between baseline results and six-month follow-up results. One minor adverse event was reported for water-based exercise training (based on reporting from two studies; 20 participants). Impact of disease severity could not be examined because data were insufficient.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited quality evidence that water-based exercise training is safe and improves exercise capacity and quality of life in people with COPD immediately after training. There is limited quality evidence that water-based exercise training offers advantages over land-based exercise training in improving endurance exercise capacity, but we remain uncertain as to whether it leads to better quality of life. Little evidence exists examining the long-term effect of water-based exercise training.\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": "Participants who completed a water-based exercise training programme could walk an average of 371 metres farther than those who completed no exercise training and 313 metres farther than those who completed land-based exercise training. Quality of life also improved in participants who completed water-based exercise training, and significantly better quality of life was reported in these participants compared with those who completed no exercise training. Little information was provided to show whether these effects last for a long time after training has ceased. The effect that severity of COPD may have on benefits of water-based exercise training needs further examination. Two studies reported on adverse events; one minor adverse event was documented (from 20 people participating in water-based exercise training)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23710
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOvarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynaecological cancer in developed countries. Surgery and chemotherapy are considered its mainstay of treatment and the completeness of surgery is a major prognostic factor for survival in these women. Currently, computed tomography (CT) is used to preoperatively assess tumour resectability. If considered feasible, women will be scheduled for primary debulking surgery (i.e. surgical efforts to remove the bulk of tumour with the aim of leaving no visible (macroscopic) tumour). If primary debulking is not considered feasible (i.e. the tumour load is too extensive), women will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce tumour load and subsequently undergo (interval) surgery. However, CT is imperfect in assessing tumour resectability, so additional imaging modalities can be considered to optimise treatment selection.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of fluorodeoxyglucose-18 (FDG) PET/CT, conventional and diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI as replacement or add-on to abdominal CT, for assessing tumour resectability at primary debulking surgery in women with stage III to IV epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE and Embase (OVID) for potential eligible studies (1946 to 23 February 2017). Additionally, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO-ICTRP and the reference list of all relevant studies were searched.\nSelection criteria\nDiagnostic accuracy studies addressing the accuracy of preoperative FDG-PET/CT, conventional or DW-MRI on assessing tumour resectability in women with advanced stage (III to IV) epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer who are scheduled to undergo primary debulking surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance and inclusion, extracted data and performed methodological quality assessment using QUADAS-2. The limited number of studies did not permit meta-analyses.\nMain results\nFive studies (544 participants) were included in the analysis. All studies performed the index test as replacement of abdominal CT. Two studies (366 participants) addressed the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease of any size (> 0 cm) with sensitivities of 1.0 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.0) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73) and specificities of 1.0 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.0) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.93), respectively (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies (178 participants) investigated MRI for different target conditions, of which two investigated DW-MRI and one conventional MRI. The first study showed that DW-MRI determines incomplete debulking with residual disease of any size with a sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.99) and a specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00) (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). For abdominal CT, the sensitivity for assessing incomplete debulking was 0.66 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.78) and the specificity 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.87) (low- and low-certainty evidence). The second study reported a sensitivity of DW-MRI of 0.75 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.97) and a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.00) (very low-certainty evidence) for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease > 1 cm. In the last study, the sensitivity for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease of > 2 cm on conventional MRI was 0.91 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.00) and the specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.00) (very low-certainty evidence). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low to moderate (according to GRADE), mainly due to small sample sizes and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nStudies suggested a high specificity and moderate sensitivity for FDG-PET/CT and MRI to assess macroscopic incomplete debulking. However, the certainty of the evidence was insufficient to advise routine addition of FDG-PET/CT or MRI to clinical practice..\nIn a research setting, adding an alternative imaging method could be considered for women identified as suitable for primary debulking by abdominal CT, in an attempt to filter out false-negatives (i.e. debulking, feasible based on abdominal CT, unfeasible at actual surgery).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To investigate the accuracy of PET and MRI in women with advanced stage ovarian cancer to determine the feasibility of primary debulking surgery."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23711
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInternational dietary recommendations include guidance on healthy eating and weight management for people who have survived cancer; however dietary interventions are not provided routinely for people living beyond cancer.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of dietary interventions for adult cancer survivors on morbidity and mortality, changes in dietary behaviour, body composition, health-related quality of life, and clinical measurements.\nSearch methods\nWe ran searches on 18 September 2019 and searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). We searched other resources including reference lists of retrieved articles, other reviews on the topic, the International Trials Registry for ongoing trials, metaRegister, Physicians Data Query, and appropriate websites for ongoing trials. We searched conference abstracts and WorldCat for dissertations.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people following a cancer diagnosis. The intervention was any dietary advice provided by any method including group sessions, telephone instruction, written materials, or a web-based approach. We included comparisons that could be usual care or written information, and outcomes measured included overall survival, morbidities, secondary malignancies, dietary changes, anthropometry, quality of life (QoL), and biochemistry.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two people independently assessed titles and full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. For analysis, we used a random-effects statistical model for all meta-analyses, and the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence, considering limitations, indirectness, inconsistencies, imprecision, and bias.\nMain results\nWe included 25 RCTs involving 7259 participants including 977 (13.5%) men and 6282 (86.5%) women. Mean age reported ranged from 52.6 to 71 years, and range of age of included participants was 23 to 85 years. The trials reported 27 comparisons and included participants who had survived breast cancer (17 trials), colorectal cancer (2 trials), gynaecological cancer (1 trial), and cancer at mixed sites (5 trials).\nFor overall survival, dietary intervention and control groups showed little or no difference in risk of mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.23; 1 study; 3107 participants; low-certainty evidence). For secondary malignancies, dietary interventions versus control trials reported little or no difference (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.15; 1 study; 3107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Co-morbidities were not measured in any included trials.\nSubsequent outcomes reported after 12 months found that dietary interventions versus control probably make little or no difference in energy intake at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -59.13 kcal, 95% CI -159.05 to 37.79; 5 studies; 3283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions versus control probably led to slight increases in fruit and vegetable servings (MD 0.41 servings, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71; 5 studies; 834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); mixed results for fibre intake overall (MD 5.12 g, 95% CI 0.66 to 10.9; 2 studies; 3127 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and likely improvement in Diet Quality Index (MD 3.46, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.38; 747 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nFor anthropometry, dietary intervention versus control probably led to a slightly decreased body mass index (BMI) (MD -0.79 kg/m², 95% CI -1.50 to -0.07; 4 studies; 777 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions versus control probably had little or no effect on waist-to-hip ratio (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 2 studies; 106 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nFor QoL, there were mixed results; several different quality assessment tools were used and evidence was of low to very low-certainty. No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence demonstrated little effects of dietary interventions on overall mortality and secondary cancers. For comorbidities, no evidence was identified. For nutritional outcomes, there was probably little or no effect on energy intake, although probably a slight increase in fruit and vegetable intake and Diet Quality Index. Results were mixed for fibre. For anthropometry, there was probably a slight decrease in body mass index (BMI) but probably little or no effect on waist-to-hip ratio. For QoL, results were highly varied. Additional high-quality research is needed to examine the effects of dietary interventions for different cancer sites, and to evaluate important outcomes including comorbidities and body composition. Evidence on new technologies used to deliver dietary interventions was limited.\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": "Diet has been linked to cancer, and dietary guidelines are available for cancer prevention. People after cancer have been found to have higher rates of other conditions including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other cancers. It is therefore sensible for people after cancer to look at changing their diet. It was important to undertake this review to assess the evidence on dietary advice for people who have survived cancer."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23712
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFor people who are malnourished and unable to consume food by mouth, nasoenteral feeding tubes are commonly used for the administration of liquid food and drugs. Postpyloric placement is when the tip of the feeding tube is placed beyond the pylorus, in the small intestine. Endoscopic-guided placement of postpyloric feeding tubes is the most common approach. Usually, an endoscopist and two or more medical professionals perform this procedure using a guidewire technique. The position of the tube is then confirmed with fluoroscopy or radiography, which requires moving people undergoing the procedure to the radiology department. Alternatively, electromagnetic-guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes can be performed by a single trained nurse, at the bedside and with less equipment than endoscopic-guided placement. Hence, electromagnetic-guided placement may represent a promising alternative to endoscopic-guided placement, especially in settings where endoscopy and radiographic facilities are unavailable or difficult to access.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of electromagnetic-guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic-guided placement.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and OpenGrey until February 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. We contacted the study authors for missing data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials comparing electromagnetic-guided placement with endoscopic-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes. We excluded prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case series or case reports.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and extracted data from the included trials. The primary outcomes were technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis. The secondary outcomes were the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes, direct healthcare costs, and adverse events. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified four randomised controlled trials with 541 participants which met our inclusion criteria. All trials had methodological limitations, and lack of blinding of participants and investigators was a major source of bias. We had 'some concerns' for the overall risk of bias in all trials.\nElectromagnetic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes may result in little to no difference in technical success in insertion compared to endoscopic-guided placement (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I2 = 81%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement may result in a difference in the proportion of participants with aspiration pneumonitis compared to endoscopic-guided placement, but these results are unclear (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.18; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement may result in little to no difference in the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic-guided placement (MD 4.06 minutes, 95% CI -0.47 to 8.59; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement likely reduces direct healthcare costs compared to endoscopic-guided placement (MD -127.69 US dollars, 95% CI -135.71 to -119.67; moderate-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement likely results in little to no difference in adverse events compared with endoscopic-guided placement (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low-certainty evidence that electromagnetic-guided placement at the bedside results in little to no difference in technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis, compared to endoscopic-guided placement. The heterogeneity of the healthcare professionals who performed the procedures and the small sample sizes limited our confidence in the evidence. Future research should be based on large studies with well-defined endpoints to potentially elucidate the differences between these two procedures.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What do the findings mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Due to a lack of robust evidence, it is unclear whether electromagnetic-guided placement at the bedside is superior to endoscopic-guided placement of feeding tubes in the small intestine. Future research in this area should focus on issues that are important to decision-makers. These include the question of which populations should be studied for electromagnetic-guided placement, and selecting key outcomes, including the details of unwanted effects and costs."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23713
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEssential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment primarily consists of pharmacological agents. While primidone and propranolol are well-established treatments in clinical practice, they may be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it is worth evaluating the treatment alternatives for essential tremor. Some specialists have suggested that pregabalin could be a potentially useful agent, but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pregabalin versus placebo or other treatment for essential tremor in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials up to December 2015. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pregabalin versus placebo or any other treatments. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias of the body of evidence, and we used inverse variance methods to analyse continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared the mean difference between treatment groups, and we combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and risk differences We used Review Manager software for data management and analysis.\nMain results\nWe only found one study eligible for this review (22 participants). We assessed the risk of bias for most domains as unclear. We graded the overall quality of evidence as very low. Compared to placebo, patients treated with pregabalin showed no significant improvement of motor tasks on the 36-point subscale of the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) (MD −2.15 points; 95% CI −9.16 to 4.86) or on the 32-point functional abilities subscale of the TRS (MD −0.66 points; 95% CI −2.90 to 1.58).The limited evidence showed no difference in study withdrawal (Mantel-Haenszel RD −0.09; 95% CI −0.48 to 0.30) and presentation of adverse events between pregabalin and placebo (Mantel-Haenszel RD 0.18; 95% CI −0.13 to 0.50).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of pregabalin for treating essential tremor are uncertain because the quality of the evidence is very low. One small study did not highlight any effect of this treatment; however, the high risk of bias and the lack of other studies on this topic limit further conclusion.\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 lack of studies and the significant limitations in the one included trial preclude firm conclusions about the risk-benefit profile of this treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23714
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.\nChronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps.\n'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in other inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 28 September 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse effects (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies. Of 1262 adult participants, 1260 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All of the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. For this update (2021) we have included two new studies, including 265 participants, which reported data relating to omalizumab.\nAnti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids)\nThree studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab.\nDisease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (a 22-item questionnaire, with a score range of 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, dupilumab results in a large reduction (improvement) in the SNOT-22 score (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty).\nAt between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab probably results in a large reduction in disease severity, as measured by a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). This is a global symptom score, including all aspects of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms.\nAt between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab may result in a reduction in seriousadverse events compared to placebo (5.9% versus 12.5%, risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.76; 3 studies, 782 participants; low certainty).\nAnti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids)\nTwo studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab.\nDisease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 25 weeks, the SNOT-22 score may be reduced (improved) in participants receiving mepolizumab (MD -13.26 points, 95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9).\nIt is very uncertain whether there is a difference in disease severity at 25 weeks: on a 0- to 10-point VAS, disease severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty).\nIt is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events at between 25 and 40 weeks (1.4% versus 0%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty).\nAnti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids)\nFive studies (329 participants) evaluated omalizumab.\nDisease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 24 weeks omalizumab probably results in a large reduction in SNOT-22 score (MD -15.62, 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45; 2 studies; 265 participants; moderate certainty; MCID 8.9).\nWe did not identify any evidence for overall disease severity.\nIt is very uncertain whether omalizumab affects the number of serious adverse events, with follow-up between 20 and 26 weeks (0.8% versus 2.5%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.00; 5 studies; 329 participants; very low certainty).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlmost all of the participants in the included studies had nasal polyps (99.8%) and all were using topical nasal steroids for their chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms.\nIn these patients, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It probably also results in a reduction in disease severity, and may result in a reduction in the number of serious adverse events.\nMepolizumab may improve disease-specific HRQL. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in disease severity or the number of serious adverse events.\nOmalizumab probably improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events. There was no evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab on disease severity (using global scores that address all symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We looked for trials where patients with chronic rhinosinusitis had been given either one of the new biologic drugs or a placebo (dummy) treatment. They needed to have been treated for at least three months. We looked for studies that measured the effect of the drug on people's symptoms, their general health and any adverse effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23715
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThree classes of inhaler medication are used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA); and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). To encourage patient adherence, two classes of medication are often combined in a single medication device; it seems that once-daily dosing offers greatest convenience to patients and may markedly influence adherence.\nObjectives\nTo compare a once-daily combination of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist inhalers (ICS/LABA) versus inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists alone (LAMA) for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).\nSearch methods\nWe performed an electronic search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group (14 May 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (14 May 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (20 September 2017), then a search of other resources, including reference lists of included studies and manufacturers' trial registers (10 October 2017). Two pairs of review authors screened and scrutinised selected articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily administered ICS/LABA and LAMA in adults with COPD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in each study. We analysed dichotomous data as random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), using Review Manager 5.\nMain results\nWe included two studies with 880 participants. We identified one ongoing trial with planned recruitment of 80 participants. Included studies enrolled participants with both partially reversible and non-reversible COPD and baseline mean per cent predicted (%pred) forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) of 43.4 to 49.6. Both studies lasted 12 weeks. Both studies used the same combination of inhaled ICS/LABA (fluticasone furoate and vilanterol 100/25 mcg once daily; FF/VI) versus LAMA (18 mcg tiotropium; TIO). They were published as full articles, and neither study was at low risk of bias in all domains.\nCompared to the TIO arm, results for pooled primary outcomes for the FF/VI arm were as follows: mortality: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.73, 880 participants (deaths reported only in the TIO arm), very low-quality evidence; COPD exacerbation (requiring short-burst oral corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both): OR 0.72, 95% Cl 0.35 to 1.50, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence; pneumonia: reported in both studies only during treatment with FF/VI: OR 6.12, 95% Cl 0.73 to 51.24, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence; and total serious adverse events: OR 0.96, 95% Cl 0.50 to 1.83, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence. None of the pneumonias were fatal. Compared to the TIO arm, we found no statistically significant difference for pooled secondary outcomes, including St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) mean total score change; hospital admissions (all-cause); disease-specific adverse events; mean weekly rescue medication use (results available from only one of the studies); and mean weekly percentage of rescue-free days for FF/VI. We found no statistically significant differences between ICS/LABA and LAMA for improvement in symptoms measured by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT score) nor for FEV₁ (change from baseline trough in 24-hour weighted mean on treatment day 84). Many pooled estimates lacked precision. Data for other endpoints such as exacerbations leading to intubation and physical activity measures were not available in included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on analysis of primary and secondary outcomes, we are uncertain whether once-daily ICS/LABA, combined in one inhaler, has a different efficacy or adverse effect profile compared to LAMA for treatment of people with COPD. However, the current review is based on only two trials with the main focus on primary outcomes other than those considered in this review. The short follow-up period and the very low quality of evidence limit our confidence in the result and increase uncertainty. Further trials of longer duration are needed. Current evidence is not strong enough to demonstrate important differences between inhalers in terms of effects, nor to establish that once-daily fluticasone/vilanterol 100/25 mcg and tiotropium 18 mcg are equivalent.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "No consistent differences were found between the two different types of inhalers included in this review. Researchers reported no major differences in death rate, numbers of COPD exacerbations, lung inflammation, or other serious unwanted events. \nPeople receiving both inhalers showed similar improvements in quality of life, symptoms, and lung function tests."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23716
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDrusen are amorphous yellowish deposits beneath the sensory retina. People with drusen, particularly large drusen, are at higher risk of developing age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The most common complication in AMD is choroidal neovascularisation (CNV), the growth of new blood vessels in the centre of the macula. The risk of CNV is higher among people who are already affected by CNV in one eye.\nIt has been observed clinically that laser photocoagulation of drusen leads to their disappearance and may prevent the occurrence of advanced disease (CNV or geographic atrophy) associated with visual loss.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effectiveness and adverse effects of laser photocoagulation of drusen in AMD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 August 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of laser treatment of drusen in AMD in which laser treatment had been compared with no intervention or sham treatment. Two types of trials were included. Some trials studied one eye of each participant (unilateral studies); other studies recruited participants with bilateral drusen and randomised one eye to photocoagulation or control and the fellow eye to the other group.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We pooled data from unilateral and bilateral studies using a random-effects model. For the bilateral studies, we estimated the within-person correlation coefficient from one study and assumed it was valid for the others.\nMain results\nThe update of this review found two additional studies, totaling 11 studies that randomised 2159 participants (3580 eyes) and followed them up to two years, of which six studies (1454 participants) included people with one eye randomised to treatment and one to control. Studies were conducted in Australia, Europe and North America.\nOverall, the risk of bias in the included studies was low, particularly for the larger studies and for the primary outcome development of CNV. Photocoagulation did not reduce the development of CNV at two years' follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.46, 11 studies, 2159 participants (3580 eyes), high quality evidence). This estimate means that, given an overall occurrence of CNV of 8.3% in the control group, we estimated an absolute risk reduction by no more than 1.4% in the laser group, according to the lower CI limit. Only two studies investigated the effect on the development of geographic atrophy and could not show a difference, but estimates were imprecise (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.51, two studies, 148 participants (148 eyes), low quality evidence).\nAmong secondary outcomes, photocoagulation led to drusen reduction (OR 9.16, 95% CI 6.28 to 13.4, three studies, 570 participants (944 eyes), high quality evidence) but was not shown to limit loss of 3 or more lines of visual acuity (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22, nine studies, 2002 participants (2386 eyes), moderate quality evidence).\nIn a subgroup analysis, no difference could be shown for conventional visible (eight studies) versus subthreshold invisible (four studies) photocoagulation for the primary outcomes (P value = 0.29). The effect in the subthreshold group did not suggest a relevant benefit (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.98). No study used micropulse subthreshold photocoagulation.\nNo other adverse effects (apart from development of CNV, geographic atrophy or visual loss) were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe trials included in this review confirm the clinical observation that laser photocoagulation of drusen leads to their disappearance. However, treatment does not result in a reduction in the risk of developing CNV, and was not shown to limit the occurrence of geographic atrophy or visual acuity loss.\nOngoing studies are being conducted to assess whether the use of extremely short laser pulses (i.e. nanosecond laser treatment) cannot only lead to drusen regression but also prevent neovascular AMD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to 3 August 2015."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23717
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe rate of successful pregnancies brought to term has barely increased since the first assisted reproductive technology (ART) technique became available. Vasodilators have been proposed to increase endometrial receptivity, thicken the endometrium, and favour uterine relaxation, all of which could improve uterine receptivity and enhance the chances for successful assisted pregnancy.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vasodilators in women undergoing fertility treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases, trial registers, and websites: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of of Controlled Trials, via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, the Open System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenSIGLE), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of relevant articles. We conducted the search in October 2017 and applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vasodilators alone or in combination with other treatments versus placebo or no treatment or versus other agents in women undergoing fertility treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and calculated risk ratios (RRs). We combined study data using a fixed-effect model and assessed evidence quality using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and vasodilator side effects. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, endometrial thickness, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy.\nMain results\nWe included 15 studies with a total of 1326 women. All included studies compared a vasodilator versus placebo or no treatment. We judged most of these studies as having unclear risk of bias. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes. The main limitations were imprecision due to low numbers of events and participants and risk of bias due to unclear methods of randomisation.\nVasodilators probably make little or no difference in rates of live birth compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.69; three RCTs; N = 350; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) but probably increase overall rates of side effects including headache and tachycardia (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.66; four RCTs; N = 418; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that if 236 per 1000 women achieve live birth with placebo or no treatment, then between 196 and 398 per 1000 will do so with the use of vasodilators.\nCompared with placebo or no treatment, vasodilators may slightly improve clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.77; 11 RCTs; N = 1054; I² = 6%; low-quality evidence). Vasodilators probably make little or no difference in rates of multiple gestation (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.42; three RCTs; N = 370; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), miscarriage (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.86; three RCTs; N = 350; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), or ectopic pregnancy (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.69; two RCTs; N = 250; I² = 5%; low-quality evidence). All studies found benefit for endometrial thickening, but reported effects varied (I² = 92%) and ranged from a mean difference of 0.80 higher (95% CI 0.18 to 1.42) to 3.57 higher (95% CI 3.01 to 4.13) with very low-quality evidence, so we are uncertain how to interpret these results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether vasodilators increase the live birth rate in women undergoing fertility treatment. However, low-quality evidence suggests that vasodilators may slightly increase clinical pregnancy rates. Moderate-quality evidence shows that vasodilators increase overall side effects in comparison with placebo or no treatment. Adequately powered studies are needed so that each treatment can be evaluated more accurately.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is of low to moderate quality. More research is needed (one study is ongoing and will be incorporated into this review in a subsequent update)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23718
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains a major complication of prematurity and currently lacks efficient treatments. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) have been extensively explored as a potential therapy in several preclinical and clinical settings. Human and animal MSCs have been shown to prevent and treat lung injury in various preclinical models of lung diseases, including experimental BPD.\nObjectives\nTo determine if MSCs, administered intravenously or endotracheally, are safe and effective in preventing or treating BPD, or both, in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 6 November 2016), Embase (1980 to 6 November 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 6 November 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs investigating prevention or treatment of BPD, or both, in preterm infants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality according to prespecified criteria.\nMain results\nWe found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs addressing the use of MSCs for prevention or treatment of BPD in premature infants. Two RCTs are currently registered and ongoing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of MSCs in the treatment or prevention of BPD in premature infants. The results of the ongoing trials addressing this issue are expected in the near future.\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 MSCs, administered intravenously or endotracheally, safe and effective in preventing or treating BPD, or both, in preterm infants?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23719
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nParkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that is best managed by a combination of medication and regular physiotherapy. In this context, virtual reality (VR) technology is proposed as a new rehabilitation tool with a possible added value over traditional physiotherapy approaches. It potentially optimises motor learning in a safe environment, and by replicating real-life scenarios could help improve functional activities of daily living.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to summarise the current best evidence for the effectiveness of VR interventions for the rehabilitation of people with PD in comparison with 1) active interventions, and 2) passive interventions. Our primary goal was to determine the effect of VR training on gait and balance. Secondary goals included examining the effects of VR on global motor function, activities of daily living, quality of life, cognitive function, exercise adherence, and the occurrence of adverse events.\nSearch methods\nWe identified relevant articles through electronic searches of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), online trials registers, and by handsearching reference lists. We carried out all searches up until 26 November 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of VR exercise interventions in people with PD. We included only trials where motor rehabilitation was the primary goal.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently searched for trials that corresponded to the predefined inclusion criteria. We independently extracted and assessed all data for methodological quality. A third review author was responsible for conflict resolution when required.\nMain results\nWe included 8 trials involving 263 people with PD in the review. Risk of bias was unclear or high for all but one of the included studies. Study sample sizes were small, and there was a large amount of heterogeneity between trials with regard to study design and the outcome measures used. As a result, we graded the quality of the evidence as low or very low. Most of the studies intended to improve motor function using commercially available devices, which were compared with physiotherapy. The interventions lasted for between 4 and 12 weeks.\nIn comparison to physiotherapy, VR may lead to a moderate improvement in step and stride length (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 1.08; 3 studies; 106 participants; low-quality evidence). VR and physiotherapy interventions may have similar effects on gait (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.55; 4 studies; 129 participants; low-quality evidence), balance (SMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.71; 5 studies; 155 participants; low-quality evidence), and quality of life (mean difference 3.73 units, 95% CI -2.16 to 9.61; 4 studies; 106 participants). VR interventions did not lead to any reported adverse events, and exercise adherence did not differ between VR and other intervention arms.\nThe evidence available comparing VR exercise with a passive control was more limited. The evidence for the main outcomes of interest was of very low quality due to the very small sample sizes of the two studies available for this comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low-quality evidence of a positive effect of short-term VR exercise on step and stride length. VR and physiotherapy may have similar effects on gait, balance, and quality of life. The evidence available comparing VR with passive control interventions was more limited. Additional high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.\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": "The purpose of this review was to determine the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) exercise interventions for rehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease (PD). We aimed to investigate whether VR exercise resulted in greater improvements compared to 1) active control interventions, and 2) passive control interventions, on gait, balance, global motor function, activities of daily living, quality of life, cognition, exercise adherence, and the occurrence of adverse events."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23720
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEngorgement is the overfilling of breasts with milk, often occurring in the early days postpartum. It results in swollen, hard, painful breasts and may lead to premature cessation of breastfeeding, decreased milk production, cracked nipples and mastitis. Various treatments have been studied but little consistent evidence has been found on effective interventions.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of different treatments for engorgement in breastfeeding women.\nSearch methods\nOn 2 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll types of randomised controlled trials and all forms of treatment for breast engorgement were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, extracted data, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nFor this udpate, we included 21 studies (2170 women randomised) conducted in a variety of settings. Six studies used individual breasts as the unit of analysis.\nTrials examined a range of interventions: cabbage leaves, various herbal compresses (ginger, cactus and aloe, hollyhock), massage (manual, electromechanical, Oketani), acupuncture, ultrasound, acupressure, scraping therapy, cold packs, and medical treatments (serrapeptase, protease, oxytocin). Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible and data were reported from single trials. Certainty of evidence was downgraded for limitations in study design, imprecision and for inconsistency of effects. We report here findings from key comparisons.\nCabbage leaf treatments compared to control\nFor breast pain, cold cabbage leaves may be more effective than routine care (mean difference (MD) -1.03 points on 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.53 to -0.53; 152 women; very low-certainty evidence) or cold gel packs (-0.63 VAS points, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.17; 152 women; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. We are uncertain about cold cabbage leaves compared to room temperature cabbage leaves, room temperature cabbage leaves compared to hot water bag, and cabbage leaf extract cream compared to placebo cream because the CIs were wide and included no effect.\nFor breast hardness, cold cabbage leaves may be more effective than routine care (MD -0.58 VAS points, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.34; 152 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about cold cabbage leaves compared to cold gel packs because the CIs were wide and included no effect.\nFor breast engorgement, room temperature cabbage leaves may be more effective than a hot water bag (MD -1.16 points on 1-6 scale, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.96; 63 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about cabbage leaf extract cream compared to placebo cream because the CIs were wide and included no effect.\nMore women were satisfied with cold cabbage leaves than with routine care (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.64; 152 women; low certainty), or with cold gel packs (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.38; 152 women; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain if women breastfeed longer following treatment with cold cabbage leaves than routine care because CIs were wide and included no effect.\nBreast swelling and adverse events were not reported.\nCompress treatments compared to control\nFor breast pain, herbal compress may be more effective than hot compress (MD -1.80 VAS points, 95% CI -2.07 to -1.53; 500 women; low-certainty evidence). Massage therapy plus cactus and aloe compress may be more effective than massage therapy alone (MD -1.27 VAS points, 95% CI -1.75 to -0.79; 100 women; low-certainty evidence). In a comparison of cactus and aloe compress to massage therapy, the CIs were wide and included no effect.\nFor breast hardness, cactus and aloe cold compress may be more effective than massage (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87; 102 women; low-certainty evidence). Massage plus cactus and aloe cold compress may reduce the risk of breast hardness compared to massage alone (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; 100 women; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain about the effects of compress treatments on breast engorgement and cessation of breastfeeding because the certainty of evidence was very low.\nAmong women receiving herbal compress treatment, 2/250 experienced skin irritation compared to 0/250 in the hot compress group (moderate-certainty evidence).\nBreast swelling and women's opinion of treatment were not reported.\nMedical treatments compared to placebo\nProtease may reduce breast pain (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04, 0.74; low-certainty evidence; 59 women) and breast swelling (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.79; 59 women; low-certainty evidence), whereas serrapeptase may reduce the risk of engorgement compared to placebo (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.88; 59 women; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain if serrapeptase reduces breast pain or swelling, or if oxytocin reduces breast engorgement compared to placebo, because the CIs were wide and included no effect.\nNo women experienced adverse events in any of the groups receiving serrapeptase, protease or placebo (low-certainty evidence).\nBreast induration/hardness, women's opinion of treatment and breastfeeding cessation were not reported.\nCold gel packs compared to control\nFor breast pain, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of cold gel packs compared to control treatments because the certainty of evidence was very low.\nFor breast hardness, cold gel packs may be more effective than routine care (MD -0.34 points on 1-6 scale, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.08; 151 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if women breastfeed longer following cold gel pack treatment compared to routine care because the CIs were wide and included no effect.\nThere may be little difference in women’s satisfaction with cold gel packs compared to routine care (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.40; 151 women; low-certainty evidence).\nBreast swelling, engorgement and adverse events were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough some interventions may be promising for the treatment of breast engorgement, such as cabbage leaves, cold gel packs, herbal compresses, and massage, the certainty of evidence is low and we cannot draw robust conclusions about their true effects. Future trials should aim to include larger sample sizes, using women - not individual breasts - as units of analysis.\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": "There is some evidence to suggest that some treatments may be promising for the treatment of breast engorgement, such as cabbage leaves, cold gel packs, herbal compresses and massage, but more studies are needed for the true effect of these interventions to be known."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23721
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increased in individuals with mental disorders. Much of the burden of disease falls on the populations of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacological, behaviour change, and organisational interventions versus active and non-active comparators in the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes among people with mental illness in LMICs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, as well as three international trials registries. We also searched conference proceedings and checked the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Searches are current up to 20 February 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological, behavioural or organisational interventions targeting the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes in adults with mental disorders in LMICs.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors working independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models.\nMain results\nOne hospital-based RCT with 150 participants (99 participants with schizophrenia) addressed our review's primary outcome of prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes onset. Low-certainty evidence from this study did not show a difference between atypical and typical antipsychotics in the development of diabetes at six weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 7.05) (among a total 99 participants with schizophrenia, 68 were in atypical and 31 were in typical antipsychotic groups; 55 participants without mental illness were not considered in the analysis).\nAn additional 29 RCTs with 2481 participants assessed one or more of the review's secondary outcomes. All studies were conducted in hospital settings and reported on pharmacological interventions. One study, which we could not include in our meta-analysis, included an intervention with pharmacological and behaviour change components. We identified no studies of organisational interventions.\nLow- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference between the use of atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.69; two studies with 144 participants), and fasting blood glucose levels (mean difference (MD) 0.05 lower, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.00; two studies with 211 participants). Participants who receive typical antipsychotics may have a lower body mass index (BMI) at follow-up than participants who receive atypical antipsychotics (MD 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81; two studies with 141 participants; moderate certainty of evidence), and may have lower total cholesterol levels eight weeks after starting treatment (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.43; one study with 112 participants).\nThere was moderate certainty evidence suggesting no difference between the use of metformin and placebo for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.09 to 16.35; three studies with 158 participants). There was moderate-to-high certainty evidence of no difference between metformin and placebo for fasting blood glucose levels (endpoint data: MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.11; change from baseline data: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.22; five studies with 264 participants). There was high certainty evidence that BMI was lower for participants receiving metformin compared with those receiving a placebo (MD -1.37, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.70; five studies with 264 participants; high certainty of evidence). There was no difference between metformin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.\nLow-certainty evidence from one study (48 participants) suggests there may be no difference between the use of melatonin and placebo for the outcome of drop-outs from care (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.66). Fasting blood glucose is probably reduced more in participants treated with melatonin compared with placebo (endpoint data: MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.01; change from baseline data: MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.09; three studies with 202 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference between melatonin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.\nVery low-certainty evidence from one study (25 participants) suggests that drop-outs may be higher in participants treated with a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) compared with those receiving a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.01). It is uncertain if there is no difference in fasting blood glucose levels between these groups (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.10; three studies with 141 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is no difference in BMI and depression between the TCA and SSRI antidepressant groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOnly one study reported data on our primary outcome of interest, providing low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in risk between atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcome of developing type 2 diabetes. We are therefore not able to draw conclusions on the prevention of type 2 diabetes in people with mental disorders in LMICs.\nFor studies reporting on secondary outcomes, there was evidence of risk of bias in the results. There is a need for further studies with participants from LMICs with mental disorders, particularly on behaviour change and on organisational interventions targeting prevention of type 2 diabetes in these populations.\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 only study assessing prevention of type 2 diabetes provided low-certainty evidence. The certainty of evidence was reduced because the study was small, and several important aspects of it were at high risk of bias. The other studies reporting secondary outcomes generally provided moderate- to high-certainty evidence for these outcomes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23722
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke is a major health issue and cause of long-term disability and has a major emotional and socioeconomic impact. There is a need to explore options for long-term sustainable interventions that support stroke survivors to engage in meaningful activities to address life challenges after stroke. Rehabilitation focuses on recovery of function and cognition to the maximum level achievable, and may include a wide range of complementary strategies including yoga.\nYoga is a mind-body practice that originated in India, and which has become increasingly widespread in the Western world. Recent evidence highlights the positive effects of yoga for people with a range of physical and psychological health conditions. A recent non-Cochrane systematic review concluded that yoga can be used as self-administered practice in stroke rehabilitation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of yoga, as a stroke rehabilitation intervention, on recovery of function and quality of life (QoL).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched July 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last searched July 2017), MEDLINE (to July 2017), Embase (to July 2017), CINAHL (to July 2017), AMED (to July 2017), PsycINFO (to July 2017), LILACS (to July 2017), SciELO (to July 2017), IndMED (to July 2017), OTseeker (to July 2017) and PEDro (to July 2017). We also searched four trials registers, and one conference abstracts database. We screened reference lists of relevant publications and contacted authors for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared yoga with a waiting-list control or no intervention control in stroke survivors.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We performed all analyses using Review Manager (RevMan). One review author entered the data into RevMan; another checked the entries. We discussed disagreements with a third review author until consensus was reached. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Where we considered studies to be sufficiently similar, we conducted a meta-analysis by pooling the appropriate data. For outcomes for which it was inappropriate or impossible to pool quantitatively, we conducted a descriptive analysis and provided a narrative summary.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs involving 72 participants. Sixty-nine participants were included in one meta-analysis (balance). Both trials assessed QoL, along with secondary outcomes measures relating to movement and psychological outcomes; one also measured disability.\nIn one study the Stroke Impact Scale was used to measure QoL across six domains, at baseline and post-intervention. The effect of yoga on five domains (physical, emotion, communication, social participation, stroke recovery) was not significant; however, the effect of yoga on the memory domain was significant (mean difference (MD) 15.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 29.31, P = 0.03), the evidence for this finding was very low grade. In the second study, QoL was assessed using the Stroke-Specifc QoL Scale; no significant effect was found.\nSecondary outcomes included movement, strength and endurance, and psychological variables, pain, and disability.\nBalance was measured in both studies using the Berg Balance Scale; the effect of intervention was not significant (MD 2.38, 95% CI -1.41 to 6.17, P = 0.22). Sensititivy analysis did not alter the direction of effect. One study measured balance self-efficacy, using the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (MD 10.60, 95% CI -7.08,= to 28.28, P = 0.24); the effect of intervention was not significant; the evidence for this finding was very low grade.\nOne study measured gait using the Comfortable Speed Gait Test (MD 1.32, 95% CI -1.35 to 3.99, P = 0.33), and motor function using the Motor Assessment Scale (MD -4.00, 95% CI -12.42 to 4.42, P = 0.35); no significant effect was found based on very low-grade evidence.\nOne study measured disability using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) but reported only whether participants were independent or dependent. No significant effect was found: (odds ratio (OR) 2.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 8.60, P = 0.31); the evidence for this finding was very low grade.\nAnxiety and depression were measured in one study. Three measures were used: the Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GCDS15), and two forms of State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Form Y) to measure state anxiety (i.e. anxiety experienced in response to stressful situations) and trait anxiety (i.e. anxiety associated with chronic psychological disorders). No significant effect was found for depression (GDS15, MD -2.10, 95% CI -4.70 to 0.50, P = 0.11) or for trait anxiety (STAI-Y2, MD -6.70, 95% CI -15.35 to 1.95, P = 0.13), based on very low-grade evidence. However, a significant effect was found for state anxiety: STAI-Y1 (MD -8.40, 95% CI -16.74 to -0.06, P = 0.05); the evidence for this finding was very low grade.\nNo adverse events were reported.\nQuality of the evidence\nWe assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low, due to the small number of trials included in the review both of which were judged to be at high risk of bias, particularly in relation to incompleteness of data and selective reporting, and especially regarding the representative nature of the sample in one study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nYoga has the potential for being included as part of patient-centred stroke rehabilitation. However, this review has identified insufficient information to confirm or refute the effectiveness or safety of yoga as a stroke rehabilitation treatment. Further large-scale methodologically robust trials are required to establish the effectiveness of yoga as a stroke rehabilitation treatment.\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 were able to analyse study data from 69 participants. No significant benefit was found on measures of QoL, balance, strength, endurance, pain, disability scores. No significant benefit was found on measures of movement, although one study reported a significant benefit in improving aspects of range of movement. One study reported a significant benefit in reducing anxiety. Neither study reported on measures of patient harm."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23723
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe failure of arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) to mature is a major problem in patients with kidney failure who require haemodialysis (HD). Preoperative planning is an important factor in increasing functional AVF. Upper limb exercise has been recommended to gain AVF maturation. Studies of pre- and post-operative upper limb exercises in patients with kidney failure patients have been reported; however, the optimal program for this population is unknown due to inconsistent results among these programs.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to determine if upper limb exercise would be beneficial for AVF maturation (prior to and post AVF creation) in patients with kidney failure and to improve AVF outcomes. This review also aimed to identify adverse events related to upper limb exercise.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 15 March 2022 through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov, and other resources (e.g. reference list, contacting relevant individuals, and grey literature).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, comparing upper limb exercise training programs with no intervention or other control programs before or after AVF creation in patients with kidney failure. Outcome measures included time to mature, ultrasound and clinical maturation, venous diameter, blood flow in the inflow artery, dialysis efficacy indicator, vascular access function (functional AVF), vascular access complications, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nStudy selection and data extraction were taken by four independent authors. Bias assessment and quality assessment were undertaken independently by two authors. The effect estimate was analysed using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, or mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nNine studies (579 participants) were included, and seven studies (519 participants) conducting post-operative exercise training could be meta-analysed. Three comparisons were undertaken: (i) isotonic exercise training versus no intervention; (ii) isometric versus isotonic exercise training; and (iii) isotonic (high volume) versus isotonic exercise training (low volume). Due to insufficient data, we could not analyse pre-operative exercise training. Overall, the risk of bias was low for selection and reporting bias, high for performance and attrition bias, and unclear for detection bias.\nCompared to no intervention, isotonic exercise training may make little or no difference to ultrasound maturation (2 studies, 263 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.25; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), but may improve clinical maturation (2 studies, 263 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence).\nCompared to isotonic exercise training, isometric exercise training may improve both ultrasound maturation (3 studies, 160 participants: RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.00; I² = 22%; low certainty evidence) and clinical maturation (3 studies, 160 participants: RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.76; I² = 53%; low certainty evidence). Venous diameter (3 studies, 160 participants: MD 0.84 mm, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.23; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) and blood flow in the inflow artery (3 studies, 160 participants: MD 140.62 mL/min, 95% CI 38.72 to 242.52; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) may be greater with isometric exercise training. It is uncertain whether isometric exercise training reduces vascular access complications (2 studies, 110 participants: RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 17.08; I² = 47%; very low certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain whether high volume isotonic exercise training improves venous diameter (2 studies, 93 participants: MD 0.19 mm, 95% CI -0.75 to 1.13; I² = 34%; very low certainty evidence) or blood flow in the inflow artery (1 study, 15 participants: MD -287.70 mL/min, 95% CI -625.99 to 60.59; very low certainty evidence) compared to low volume isotonic exercise training.\nNone of the included studies reported time to mature, dialysis efficacy indicator, vascular access function, or adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur findings suggest that the current research evidence examining upper limb exercise programs is of low quality, attributable to variability in the type of interventions used and the overall low number of studies and participants.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is this issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "An arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is a special connection made between an artery and vein, creating a strong blood vessel which can then be accessed repeatedly during haemodialysis treatment. Once created, it usually takes six to eight weeks to develop (or mature) before it can be used. Maturation results in the joined vein becoming bigger and its walls becoming thicker and stronger due to the increased blood flow. Exercise programs may improve the time taken to mature both the AVF and its function, however, what type of exercise program and when the exercise program should be undertaken (before or after the creation of the AVF) remains unclear."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23724
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAfter decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children).\nEligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary.\nFor each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician.\nWe assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group.\nWe conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction.\nMain results\nWe included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions).\nInterventions that improved buying power:\nUnconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight.\nConditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children.\nIncome generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households.\nInterventions that addressed food prices:\nFood vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting.\nFood and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence).\nInterventions that addressed the social environment:\nSocial support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity.\nNone of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Food and nutrition subsidies\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "may improve dietary diversity among school children (low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-quality evidence)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23725
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDehydration is an important cause of death in patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD). Parenteral fluids are often required in patients with fluid requirements in excess of their oral intake. The peripheral intravenous route is the most commonly used method of parenteral access, but inserting and maintaining an intravenous line can be challenging in the context of EVD. Therefore it is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of different routes for achieving parenteral access (e.g. intravenous, intraosseous, subcutaneous and intraperitoneal).\nObjectives\nTo compare the reliability, ease of use and speed of insertion of different parenteral access methods.\nSearch methods\nWe ran the search on 17 November 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), clinicaltrials.gov and screened reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing different parenteral routes for the infusion of fluids or medication.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors examined the titles and abstracts of records obtained by searching the electronic databases to determine eligibility. Two review authors extracted data from the included trials and assessed the risk of bias. Outcome measures of interest were success of insertion; time required for insertion; number of insertion attempts; number of dislodgements; time period with functional access; local site reactions; clinicians' perception of ease of administration; needlestick injury to healthcare workers; patients' discomfort; and mortality. For trials involving the administration of fluids we also collected data on the volume of fluid infused, changes in serum electrolytes and markers of renal function. We rated the quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: success of insertion, time required for insertion, number of dislodgements, volume of fluid infused and needlestick injuries.\nMain results\nWe included 17 trials involving 885 participants. Parenteral access was used to infuse fluids in 11 trials and medications in six trials. None of the trials involved patients with EVD. Intravenous and intraosseous access was compared in four trials; intravenous and subcutaneous access in 11; peripheral intravenous and intraperitoneal access in one; saphenous vein cutdown and intraosseous access in one; and intraperitoneal with subcutaneous access in one. All of the trials assessing the intravenous method involved peripheral intravenous access.\nWe judged few trials to be at low risk of bias for any of the assessed domains.\nCompared to the intraosseous group, patients in the intravenous group were more likely to experience an insertion failure (risk ratio (RR) 3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.39 to 6.33; n = 242; GRADE rating: low). We did not pool data for time to insertion but estimates from the trials suggest that inserting intravenous access takes longer (GRADE rating: moderate). Clinicians judged the intravenous route to be easier to insert (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; n = 182). A larger volume of fluids was infused via the intravenous route (GRADE rating: moderate). There was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcomes, including adverse events.\nCompared to the subcutaneous group, patients in the intravenous group were more likely to experience an insertion failure (RR 14.79, 95% CI 2.87 to 76.08; n = 238; GRADE rating: moderate) and dislodgement of the device (RR 3.78, 95% CI 1.16 to 12.34; n = 67; GRADE rating: low). Clinicians also judged the intravenous route as being more difficult to insert and patients were more likely to be agitated in the intravenous group. Patients in the intravenous group were more likely to develop a local infection and phlebitis, but were less likely to develop erythema, oedema or swelling than those in the subcutaneous group. A larger volume of fluids was infused into patients via the intravenous route. There was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcome.\nThere were insufficient data to reliably determine if the risk of insertion failure differed between the saphenous vein cutdown (SVC) and intraosseous method (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.13; GRADE rating: low). Insertion using SVC took longer than the intraosseous method (MD 219.60 seconds, 95% CI 135.44 to 303.76; GRADE rating: moderate). There were no data and therefore there was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcome.\nThere were insufficient data to reliably determine the relative effects of intraperitoneal or central intravenous access relative to any other parenteral access method.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are several different ways of achieving parenteral access in patients who are unable meet their fluid requirements with oral intake alone. The quality of the evidence, as assessed using the GRADE criteria, is somewhat limited because of the lack of adequately powered trials at low risk of bias. However, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to draw the following conclusions: if peripheral intravenous access can be achieved easily, this allows infusion of larger volumes of fluid than other routes; but if this is not possible, the intraosseous and subcutaneous routes are viable alternatives. The subcutaneous route may be suitable for patients who are not severely dehydrated but in whom ongoing fluid losses cannot be met by oral intake.\nA film to accompany this review can be viewed here (http://youtu.be/ArVPzkf93ng).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "When the results of these trials were gathered together, they suggested that both the intraosseous and subcutaneous routes may be easier and quicker to insert into patients than the intravenous route, but more fluid can be given intravenously than by either the intraosseous or subcutaneous method. There has not been enough research into the intraperitoneal method to know how it compares to the other methods."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23726
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) causes progressive or relapsing weakness and numbness of the limbs, developing over at least two months. Uncontrolled studies suggest that intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) helps. This review was first published in 2002 and has since been updated, most recently in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo review systematically the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of IVIg in CIDP.\nSearch methods\nOn 4 December 2012, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (2012, issue 11 in the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE and EMBASE to December 2012 and ISI from January 1985 to May 2008. We searched for ongoing trials through two metaRegistries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and Current Controlled Trials).\nSelection criteria\nWe selected RCTs testing any dose of IVIg versus placebo, plasma exchange or corticosteroids in definite or probable CIDP.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors reviewed literature searches to identify potentially relevant RCTs, scored their quality and extracted data independently. We contacted authors for additional information.\nMain results\nWe considered eight RCTs, including 332 participants, to be eligible for inclusion in the review. These trials were homogeneous and the overall risk of bias low. Five studies, in a total of 235 participants compared IVIg against placebo. One trial with 20 participants compared IVIg with plasma exchange, one trial compared IVIg with prednisolone in 32 participants, and one trial, newly included at this update, compared IVIg with intravenous methylprednisolone in 46 participants.\nA significantly higher proportion of participants improved in disability within one month after IVIg treatment as compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 3.36; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 3.03 (95% CI 2.33 to 4.55), high quality evidence). Whether all these improvements are equally clinically relevant cannot be deduced from this analysis because each trial used different disability scales and definitions of significant improvement. In three trials, including 84 participants, the disability score could be transformed to the modified Rankin score, on which improvement of one point after IVIg treatment compared to placebo was barely significant (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.83) (moderate quality evidence). Only one placebo-controlled study included in this review had a long-term follow-up. The results of this study suggest that IVIg improves disability more than placebo over 24 and 48 weeks.\nThe mean disability score revealed no significant difference between IVIg and plasma exchange at six weeks (moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference in improvement in disability on prednisolone compared with IVIg after two or six weeks, or on methylprednisolone compared to IVIg after two weeks or six months (moderate quality evidence).\nThere were no statistically significant differences in frequencies of side effects between the three types of treatment for which data were available (IVg versus placebo or steroids). (moderate or high quality evidence) Mild and transient adverse events were found in 49% of participants treated with IVIg, while serious adverse events were found in six per cent.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence from RCTs shows that IVIg improves disability for at least two to six weeks compared with placebo, with an NNTB of three. During this period it has similar efficacy to plasma exchange, oral prednisolone and intravenous methylprednisolone. In one large trial, the benefit of IVIg persisted for 24 and possibly 48 weeks. Further research is needed to compare the long-term benefits as well as side effects of IVIg with other treatments.\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 performed this review to assess the evidence from randomised trials on how effective and safe intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is for people with CIDP."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23727
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review adds to a series of reviews looking at primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.\nChronic rhinosinusitis is common and characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Antifungals have been suggested as a treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic and topical antifungal agents in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, including those with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) and, if possible, AFRS exclusively.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 17 November 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a two-week follow-up period comparing topical or systemic antifungals with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment, (c) other pharmacological interventions or (d) a different antifungal agent. We did not include post-surgical antifungal use.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the significant adverse effects of hepatic toxicity (systemic antifungals). Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse effects of gastrointestinal disturbance (systemic antifungals) and epistaxis, headache or local discomfort (topical antifungals). We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies (490 adult participants). The presence of nasal polyps on examination was an inclusion criterion in three studies, an exclusion criterion in one study and the remaining studies included a mixed population. No studies specifically investigated the effect of antifungals in patients with AFRS.\nTopical antifungal treatment versus placebo or no intervention\nWe included seven studies (437 participants) that used amphotericin B (six studies; 383 participants) and one that used fluconazole (54 participants). Different delivery methods, volumes and concentrations were used.\nFour studies reported disease-specific health-related quality of life using a range of instruments. We did not meta-analyse the results due to differences in the instruments used, and measurement and reporting methods. At the end of treatment (one to six months) none of the studies reported statistically significant differences between the groups (low-quality evidence - we are uncertain about the result).\nTwo studies reported disease severity using patient-reported symptom scores. Meta-analysis was not possible. At the end of treatment (8 to 13 weeks) one study showed no difference and the second found that patients in the placebo group had less severe symptoms (very low-quality evidence - we are very uncertain about the result).\nIn terms of adverse effects , topical antifungals may lead to more local irritation compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 8.62; 312 participants; 5 studies; low-quality evidence) but little or no difference in epistaxis (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.63; 225 participants; 4 studies, low-quality evidence) or headache (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.63; 195 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence).\nNone of the studies found a difference in generic health-related quality of life (one study) or endoscopic score (five studies) between the treatment groups. Three studies investigated CT scan ; two found no difference between the groups and one found a significant decrease in the mean percentage of air space occluded, favouring the antifungal group.\nSystemic antifungal treatment versus placebo or no treatment\nOne study (53 participants) comparing terbinafine tablets against placebo reported that there may be little or no difference between the groups in disease-specific health-related quality of life or disease severity score (both low-quality evidence). Systemic antifungals may lead to more hepatic toxicity events (RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 78.60) but fewer gastrointestinal disturbances (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.36), compared to placebo, although the evidence was of low quality.\nThis study did not find a difference in CT scan score between the groups. Generic health-related quality of life and endoscopic score were not measured.\nOther comparisons\nWe found no studies that compared antifungal agents against other treatments for chronic rhinosinusitis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the very low quality of the evidence, it is uncertain whether or not the use of topical or systemic antifungals has an impact on patient outcomes in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis compared with placebo or no treatment. Studies including specific subgroups (i.e. AFRS) are lacking.\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 for the benefits and harms of antifungal treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis including those with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23728
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPneumonia in residents of nursing homes can be termed nursing home-acquired pneumonia (NHAP). NHAP is one of the most common infections identified in nursing home residents and has the highest mortality of any infection in this population. NHAP is associated with poor oral hygiene and may be caused by aspiration of oropharyngeal flora into the lung. Oral care measures to remove or disrupt oral plaque might reduce the risk of NHAP. This is the first update of a review published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo assess effects of oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia in residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database and three trials registers up to 12 May 2022. We also used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of oral care measures (brushing, swabbing, denture cleaning mouthrinse, or combination) in residents of any age in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) or incidence rate ratio (IRR) for time-to-event outcomes, using random-effects models.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs (6244 participants), all of which were at high risk of bias. Three studies were carried out in Japan, two in the USA, and one in France. The studies evaluated one comparison: professional oral care versus usual oral care. We did not include the results from one study (834 participants) because it had been stopped at interim analysis.\nConsistent results from five studies, with 5018 participants, provided insufficient evidence of a difference between professional oral care and usual (simple, self-administered) oral care in the incidence of pneumonia. Three studies reported HRs, one reported IRRs, and one reported RRs. Due to the variation in study design and follow-up duration, we decided not to pool the data. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for this outcome by two levels to low: one level for study limitations (high risk of performance bias), and one level for imprecision.\nThere was low-certainty evidence from meta-analysis of two individually randomised studies that professional oral care may reduce the risk of pneumonia-associated mortality compared with usual oral care at 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.76, 454 participants). Another study (2513 participants) reported insufficient evidence of a difference for this outcome at 18 months' follow-up.\nThree studies measured all-cause mortality and identified insufficient evidence of a difference between professional and usual oral care at 12 to 30 months' follow-up.\nOnly one study (834 participants) measured the adverse effects of the interventions. The study identified no serious events and 64 non-serious events, the most common of which were oral cavity disturbances (not defined) and dental staining.\nNo studies evaluated oral care versus no oral care.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough low-certainty evidence suggests that professional oral care may reduce mortality compared to usual care when measured at 24 months, the effect of professional oral care on preventing NHAP remains largely unclear. Low-certainty evidence was inconclusive about the effects of this intervention on incidence and number of first episodes of NHAP. Due to differences in study design, effect measures, follow-up duration, and composition of the interventions, we cannot determine the optimal oral care protocol from current evidence.\nFuture trials will require larger samples, robust methods that ensure low risk of bias, and more practicable interventions for nursing home residents.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This evidence is up to date to 30 June 2022."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23729
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing globally, an increase which has major implications for both population health and costs to health services. This is an update of a Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of strategies to change the behaviour of health professionals or the organisation of care compared to standard care, to promote weight reduction in children and adults with overweight or obesity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases for primary studies up to September 2016: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, DARE and PsycINFO. We searched the reference lists of included studies and two trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised trials that compared routine provision of care with interventions aimed either at changing the behaviour of healthcare professionals or the organisation of care to promote weight reduction in children and adults with overweight or obesity.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane when conducting this review. We report the results for the professional interventions and the organisational interventions in seven 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe identified 12 studies for inclusion in this review, seven of which evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professional and five targeting the organisation of care. Eight studies recruited adults with overweight or obesity and four recruited children with obesity. Eight studies had an overall high risk of bias, and four had a low risk of bias. In total, 139 practices provided care to 89,754 people, with a median follow-up of 12 months.\nProfessional interventions\nEducational interventions aimed at general practitioners (GPs), may slightly reduce the weight of participants (mean difference (MD) -1.24 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.84 to 0.37; 3 studies, N = 1017 adults; low-certainty evidence).\nTailoring interventions to improve GPs' compliance with obesity guidelines probably leads to little or no difference in weight loss (MD 0.05 (kg), 95% CI -0.32 to 0.41; 1 study, N = 49,807 adults; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain if providing doctors with reminders results in a greater weight reduction than standard care (men: MD -11.20 kg, 95% CI -20.66 kg to -1.74 kg, and women: MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI [-7.34, 4.74] kg; 1 study, N = 90 adults; very low-certainty evidence).\nProviding clinicians with a clinical decision support (CDS) tool to assist with obesity management at the point of care leads to little or no difference in the body mass index (BMI) z-score of children (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.01 in 378 children; moderate-certainty evidence), CDS tools may lead to little or no difference in weight loss in adults: MD -0.095 kg (-0.21 lbs), P = 0.47; 1 study, N = 35,665; low-certainty evidence.\nOrganisational interventions\nAdults with overweight or obesity may lose more weight if the care was provided by a dietitian (by -5.60 kg, 95% CI -4.83 kg to -6.37 kg) or by a doctor-dietitian team (by -6.70 kg, 95% CI -7.52 kg to -5.88 kg; 1 study, N = 270 adults; low-certainty evidence). Shared care leads to little or no difference in the BMI z-score of children with obesity (adjusted MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.03; 1 study, N = 105 children; low-certainty evidence).\nOrganisational restructuring of the delivery of primary care (i.e. introducing the chronic care model) may result in a slightly lower increase in the BMI of children who received care at intervention clinics (BMI change: adjusted MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.07; 1 study, unadjusted MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.16; N=473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nMail and phone interventions probably lead to little or no difference in weight loss in adults (mean weight change (kg) using mail: -0.36, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.46; phone: -0.44, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.38; 1 study, N = 1801 adults; moderate-certainty evidence). Care delivered by a nurse at a primary care clinic may lead to little or no difference in the BMI z-score in children (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.12; 1 study, N = 52 children; very low-certainty evidence).\nTwo studies reported data on cost effectiveness: one study favoured mail and standard care over telephone consultations, and the other study achieved weight loss at a modest cost in both intervention groups (doctor and doctor-dietitian). One study of shared care reported similar adverse effects in both groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found little convincing evidence for a clinically-important effect on participants' weight or BMI of any of the evaluated interventions. While pooled results from three studies indicate that educational interventions targeting healthcare professionals may lead to a slight weight reduction in adults, the certainty of these results is low. Two trials evaluating CDS tools (unpooled results) for improved weight management suggest little or no effect on weight or BMI change in adults or children with overweight or obesity. Evidence for all the other interventions evaluated came mostly from single studies. The certainty of the included evidence varied from moderate to very low for the main outcomes (weight and BMI). All of the evaluated interventions would need further investigation to ascertain their strengths and limitations as effective strategies to change the behaviour of healthcare professionals or the organisation of care. As only two studies reported on cost, we know little about cost effectiveness across the evaluated interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The number of people with overweight or obesity is increasing around the world. Excessive weight is associated with many chronic diseases.\nWe searched the literature for studies that evaluated the effects of interventions aimed at changing the behaviour of health professionals or the way care is organised for improved weight management and weight loss."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23730
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLoss of olfactory function is well recognised as a symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the pandemic has resulted in a large number of individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance. This is an update of the 2021 review with four studies added.\nObjectives\n1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with acute olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection.\n2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance, which had been present for less than four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included five studies with 691 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: intranasal corticosteroid sprays, intranasal corticosteroid drops, intranasal hypertonic saline and zinc sulphate.\nIntranasal corticosteroid spray compared to no intervention/placebo\nWe included three studies with 288 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for less than four weeks following COVID-19.\nPresence of normal olfactory function\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on both self-rated recovery of olfactory function and recovery of olfactory function using psychophysical tests at up to four weeks follow-up (self-rated: risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; psychophysical testing: RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.63; 1 study; 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nChange in sense of smell\nThe evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on self-rated change in the sense of smell (at less than 4 weeks: mean difference (MD) 0.5 points lower, 95% CI 1.38 lower to 0.38 higher; 1 study; 77 participants; at > 4 weeks to 3 months: MD 2.4 points higher, 95% CI 1.32 higher to 3.48 higher; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence, rated on a scale of 1 to 10, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Intranasal corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the change in sense of smell when assessed with psychophysical testing (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI 2.06 points lower to 2.06 points higher; 1 study; 77 participants; low-certainty evidence, 0- to 24-point scale, higher scores mean better olfactory function).\nSerious adverse effects\nThe authors of one study reported no adverse effects, but their intention to collect these data was not pre-specified so we are uncertain if these were systematically sought and identified. The remaining two studies did not report on adverse effects.\nIntranasal corticosteroid drops compared to no intervention/placebo\nWe included one study with 248 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for ≤ 15 days following COVID-19.\nPresence of normal olfactory function\nIntranasal corticosteroid drops may make little or no difference to self-rated recovery at > 4 weeks to 3 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.11; 1 study; 248 participants; low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were assessed by this study.\nData on the use of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and the use of zinc sulphate to prevent persistent olfactory dysfunction are included in the full text of the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How we identified and assessed the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for all relevant studies in the medical literature to summarise the results. We also looked at how certain the evidence was, considering things like the size of the studies and how they were carried out. Based on this, we classed the evidence as being of very low, low, moderate or high certainty."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23731
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeriorbital and orbital cellulitis are infections of the tissue anterior and posterior to the orbital septum, respectively, and can be difficult to differentiate clinically. Periorbital cellulitis can also progress to become orbital cellulitis.\nOrbital cellulitis has a relatively high incidence in children and adults, and potentially serious consequences including vision loss, meningitis, and death. Complications occur in part due to inflammatory swelling from the infection creating a compartment syndrome within the bony orbit, leading to elevated ocular pressure and compression of vasculature and the optic nerve. Corticosteroids are used in other infections to reduce this inflammation and edema, but they can lead to immune suppression and worsening infection.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive corticosteroids for periorbital and orbital cellulitis, and to assess their effectiveness and safety in children and in adults separately.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); 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 2 March 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies of participants diagnosed with periorbital or orbital cellulitis. We excluded studies that focused exclusively on participants who were undergoing elective endoscopic surgery, including management of infections postsurgery as well as studies conducted solely on trauma patients. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Any study that administered corticosteroids was eligible regardless of type of steroid, route of administration, length of therapy, or timing of treatment. Comparators could include placebo, another corticosteroid, no treatment control, or another intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.\nMain results\nThe search yielded 7998 records, of which 13 were selected for full-text screening. We identified one trial for inclusion. No other eligible ongoing or completed trials were identified. The included study compared the use of corticosteroids in addition to antibiotics to the use of antibiotics alone for the treatment of orbital cellulitis. The study included a total of 21 participants aged 10 years and older, of which 14 participants were randomized to corticosteroids and antibiotics and 7 participants to antibiotics alone. Participants randomized to corticosteroids and antibiotics received adjunctive corticosteroids after initial antibiotic response (mean 5.13 days), at an initial dose of 1.5 mg/kg for three days followed by 1 mg/kg for another three days before being tapered over a one- to two-week period.\nWe assessed the included study as having an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment, masking (blinding), selective outcome reporting, and other sources of bias. Risk of bias from sequence generation and incomplete outcome data were low.\nThe certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low, downgraded for risk of bias (-1) and imprecision (-2). Length of hospital stay was compared between the group receiving antibiotics alone compared to the group receiving antibiotics and corticosteroids (mean difference (MD) 4.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.48 to 9.08; 21 participants). There was no observed difference in duration of antibiotics between treatment groups (MD 3.00, 95% CI −0.48 to 6.48; 21 participants). Likewise, preservation of visual acuity at 12 weeks of follow-up between group was also assessed (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 21 participants). Pain scores were compared between groups on day 3 (MD −0.20, 95% CI −1.02 to 0.62; 22 eyes) along with the need for surgical intervention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.23; 21 participants). Exposure keratopathy was reported in five participants who received corticosteroids and antibiotics and three participants who received antibiotic alone (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.63; 21 participants). No major complications of orbital cellulitis were seen in either the intervention or the control group. No side effects of corticosteroids were reported, although it is unclear which side effects were assessed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of periorbital and orbital cellulitis. Since there is significant variation in how corticosteroids are used in clinical practice, additional high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials is needed to inform decision making. Future studies should explore the effects of corticosteroids in children and adults separately, and evaluate different dosing and timing of corticosteroid therapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Periorbital and orbital cellulitis are potentially serious infections of the area around the eye. These infections are usually treated in hospital, as they can cause serious complications. One contributing factor to the development of these complications is that there is limited space in the bony structures that surround the eye. When these spaces get swollen as a result of infection, the pressure inside the space increases, which can damage the eye. Steroids are medications that can reduce swelling, but they can also affect the body’s ability to fight infection. There are no clear guidelines on whether or not to use steroids to treat periorbital and orbital cellulitis, and there is a lot of variation in how these conditions are currently treated among doctors. Our review used standard methods to identify studies that assigned patients to receive either steroids or another treatment using a random method, and then compared the results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23732
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMultifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with no objective loss of sensation. It may cause prolonged periods of disability. Treatment options for MMN are few. People with MMN do not usually respond to steroids or plasma exchange. Uncontrolled studies have suggested a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005, with an amendment in 2007. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in people with MMN.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 20 April 2021: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, and checked the reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of any dose of IVIg and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) in people with definite or probable MMN for inclusion in the review. Eligible studies had to have measured at least one of the following outcomes: disability, muscle strength, or electrophysiological conduction block. We used studies that reported the frequency of adverse effects to assess safety.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed the literature searches to identify potentially relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nSix cross-over RCTs including a total of 90 participants were suitable for inclusion in the review. Five RCTs compared IVIg to placebo, and one compared IVIg to SCIg. Four of the trials comparing IVIg versus placebo involved IVIg-naive participants (induction treatment). In the other two trials, participants were known IVIg responders receiving maintencance IVIg at baseline and were then randomised to maintenance treatment with IVIg or placebo in one trial, and IVIg or SCIg in the other. Risk of bias was variable in the included studies, with three studies at high risk of bias in at least one risk of bias domain.\nIVIg versus placebo (induction treatment): three RCTs including IVIg-naive participants reported a disability measure. Disability improved in seven out of 18 (39%) participants after IVIg treatment and in two out of 18 (11%) participants after placebo (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 10.12; 3 RCTs, 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with an improvement in disability at 12 months was not reported. Strength improved in 21 out of 27 (78%) IVIg-naive participants treated with IVIg and one out of 27 (4%) participants who received placebo (RR 11.00, 95% CI 2.86 to 42.25; 3 RCTs, 27 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg treatment may increase the proportion of people with resolution of at least one conduction block; however, the results were also consistent with no effect (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 51.70; 4 RCTs, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIVIg versus placebo (maintenance treatment): a trial that included participants on maintenance IVIg treatment reported an increase in disability in 17 out of 42 (40%) people switching to placebo and seven out of 42 (17%) remaining on IVIg (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.24; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a decrease in grip strength in 20 out of 42 (48%) participants after a switch to placebo treatment compared to four out of 42 (10%) remaining on IVIg (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.54; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events, IVIg versus placebo (induction or maintenance): four trials comparing IVIg and placebo reported adverse events, of which data from two studies could be meta-analysed. Transient side effects were reported in 71% of IVIg-treated participants versus 4.8% of placebo-treated participants in these studies. The pooled RR for the development of side effects was 10.33 (95% CI 2.15 to 49.77; 2 RCTs, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was only one serious side effect (pulmonary embolism) during IVIg treatment.\nIVIg versus SCIg (maintenance treatment): the trial that compared continuation of IVIg maintenance versus SCIg maintenance did not measure disability. The evidence was very uncertain for muscle strength (standardised mean difference 0.08, 95% CI −0.84 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the number of people with side effects attributable to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-certainty evidence from three small RCTs shows that IVIg may improve muscle strength in people with MMN, and low-certainty evidence indicates that it may improve disability; the estimate of the magnitude of improvement of disability has wide CIs and needs further studies to secure its significance. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, it is probable that most IVIg responders deteriorate in disability and muscle strength after IVIg withdrawal. SCIg might be an alternative treatment to IVIg, but the evidence is very uncertain. More research is needed to identify people in whom IVIg withdrawal is possible and to confirm efficacy of SCIg as an alternative maintenance treatment.\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": "MMN is a rare condition that causes weakness of the limbs, which tends to worsen over time. The arms, especially the hands, are more often involved than the legs. The usual treatment for MMN is IVIg."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23733
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDeviation from a normal bite can be defined as malocclusion. Orthodontic treatment takes 20 months on average to correct malocclusion. Accelerating the rate of tooth movement may help to reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment and associated unwanted effects including orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR), demineralisation and reduced patient motivation and compliance. Several non-surgical adjuncts have been advocated with the aim of accelerating the rate of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of non-surgical adjunctive interventions on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and the overall duration of treatment.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 6 September 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people receiving orthodontic treatment using fixed or removable appliances along with non-surgical adjunctive interventions to accelerate tooth movement. We excluded split-mouth studies and studies that involved people who were treated with orthognathic surgery, or who had cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial syndromes or deformities.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors were responsible for study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction; they carried out these tasks independently. Disagreements were resolved by discussion amongst the review team to reach consensus.\nMain results\nWe included 23 studies, none of which were rated as low risk of bias overall. We categorised the included studies as testing light vibrational forces or photobiomodulation, the latter including low level laser therapy and light emitting diode. The studies assessed non-surgical interventions added to fixed or removable orthodontic appliances compared to treatment without the adjunct. A total of 1027 participants (children and adults) were recruited with loss to follow-up ranging from 0% to 27% of the original samples.\nCertainty of the evidence\nFor all comparisons and outcomes presented below, the certainty of the evidence is low to very low.\nLight vibrational forces\nEleven studies assessed how applying light vibrational forces (LVF) affected orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). There was no evidence of a difference between the intervention and control groups for duration of orthodontic treatment (MD -0.61 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.44 to 1.22; 2 studies, 77 participants); total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment visits (MD -0.32 visits, 95% CI -1.69 to 1.05; 2 studies, 77 participants); orthodontic tooth movement during the early alignment stage (reduction of lower incisor irregularity (LII)) at 4-6 weeks (MD 0.12 mm, 95% CI -1.77 to 2.01; 3 studies, 144 participants), or 10-16 weeks (MD -0.18 mm, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.83; 4 studies, 175 participants); rate of canine distalisation (MD -0.01 mm/month, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.18; 2 studies, 40 participants); or rate of OTM during en masse space closure (MD 0.10 mm per month, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.29; 2 studies, 81 participants). No evidence of a difference was found between LVF and control groups in rate of OTM when using removable orthodontic aligners. Nor did the studies show evidence of a difference between groups for our secondary outcomes, including patient perception of pain, patient-reported need for analgesics at different stages of treatment and harms or side effects.\nPhotobiomodulation\nTen studies assessed the effect of applying low level laser therapy (LLLT) on rate of OTM. We found that participants in the LLLT group had a statistically significantly shorter length of time for the teeth to align in the early stages of treatment (MD -50 days, 95% CI -58 to -42; 2 studies, 62 participants) and required fewer appointments (-2.3, 95% CI -2.5 to -2.0; 2 studies, 125 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between the LLLT and control groups in OTM when assessed as percentage reduction in LII in the first month of alignment (1.63%, 95% CI -2.60 to 5.86; 2 studies, 56 participants) or in the second month (percentage reduction MD 3.75%, 95% CI -1.74 to 9.24; 2 studies, 56 participants). However, LLLT resulted in an increase in OTM during the space closure stage in the maxillary arch (MD 0.18 mm/month, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.33; 1 study; 65 participants; very low level of certainty) and the mandibular arch (right side MD 0.16 mm/month, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.19; 1 study; 65 participants). In addition, LLLT resulted in an increased rate of OTM during maxillary canine retraction (MD 0.01 mm/month, 95% CI 0 to 0.02; 1 study, 37 participants). These findings were not clinically significant. The studies showed no evidence of a difference between groups for our secondary outcomes, including OIIRR, periodontal health and patient perception of pain at early stages of treatment.\nTwo studies assessed the influence of applying light-emitting diode (LED) on OTM. Participants in the LED group required a significantly shorter time to align the mandibular arch compared to the control group (MD -24.50 days, 95% CI -42.45 to -6.55, 1 study, 34 participants). There is no evidence that LED application increased the rate of OTM during maxillary canine retraction (MD 0.01 mm/month, 95% CI 0 to 0.02; P = 0.28; 1 study, 39 participants ). In terms of secondary outcomes, one study assessed patient perception of pain and found no evidence of a difference between groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence from randomised controlled trials concerning the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions to accelerate orthodontic treatment is of low to very low certainty. It suggests that there is no additional benefit of light vibrational forces or photobiomodulation for reducing the duration of orthodontic treatment. Although there may be a limited benefit from photobiomodulation application for accelerating discrete treatment phases, these results have to be interpreted with caution due to their questionable clinical significance. Further well-designed, rigorous RCTs with longer follow-up periods spanning from start to completion of orthodontic treatment are required to determine whether non-surgical interventions may reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment by a clinically significant amount, with minimal adverse effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Do additional non-surgical procedures that claim to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement reduce the overall length of orthodontic treatment?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23734
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global incidence of cancer, and third in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used as a second-line diagnostic imaging modality to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma on prior diagnostic test such as abdominal ultrasound or alpha-fetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study (computed tomography (CT) or MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is considered valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma amenable to surgical resection could improve the prognosis. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma may, therefore, be missed. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival: the conflicting results can be a consequence of inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of MRI in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes is needed for either ruling out or diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma.\nObjectives\nPrimary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease.\nSecondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test of Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 9 November 2021. We manually searched articles retrieved, contacted experts, handsearched abstract books from meetings held during the last 10 years, and searched for literature in OpenGrey (9 November 2021). Further information was requested by e-mails, but no additional information was provided. No data was obtained through correspondence with investigators. We applied no language or document-type restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nStudies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and we tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses.\nMain results\nWe included 34 studies, with 4841 participants. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain because most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Regarding applicability, we judged 15% (5/34) of studies to be at low concern and 85% (29/34) of studies to be at high concern mostly owing to characteristics of the participants, most of whom were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation, and due to pathology of the explanted liver being the only reference standard.\nMRI for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 84.4% (95% CI 80.1% to 87.9%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 90.1% to 96.1%) (34 studies, 4841 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nMRI for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 84.3% (95% CI 77.6% to 89.3%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 88.3% to 95.9%) (16 studies, 2150 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThe observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, which included only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test, showed no variation in the results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that using MRI as a second-line imaging modality to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 16% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 16% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo inappropriate surgery. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias in the included studies and concerns regarding their applicability limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is it important to diagnose liver cancer accurately?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Liver cancer, or 'hepatocellular carcinoma', occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease, regardless of the cause. It is the sixth most common cancer in the world and the third most common cause of deaths due to cancer. It is difficult to diagnose because early symptoms are similar to those of liver disease. People with blood test or ultrasound results that suggest liver cancer may go on to have further tests, such as scans that produce images of the liver, or biopsy where a small piece of the liver is removed and examined. If liver cancer is detected early, people may be treated with surgery to remove part of the liver (called a liver resection) or with a liver transplant. If the liver cancer is more advanced, they may need chemotherapy. If liver cancer is missed at the diagnostic test, people will not receive appropriate treatment. However, incorrectly diagnosing liver cancer when it is not present means that people may undergo unnecessary testing or treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23735
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic antipsychotic drug treatment may cause tardive dyskinesia (TD), a long-term movement disorder. Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonist drugs, which have intense sedative properties and may exacerbate psychotic symptoms, have been used to treat TD.\nObjectives\n1. Primary objective\nThe primary objective was to determine whether using non-benzodiazepine GABA agonist drugs for at least six weeks was clinically effective for the treatment of antipsychotic-induced TD in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or other chronic mental illnesses.\n2. Secondary objectives\nThe secondary objectives were as follows.\nTo examine whether any improvement occurred with short periods of intervention (less than six weeks) and, if this did occur, whether this effect was maintained at longer periods of follow-up.\nTo examine whether there was a differential effect between the various compounds.\nTo test the hypothesis that GABA agonist drugs are most effective for a younger age group (less than 40 years old).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (last searched April 2017), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials, and, when necessary, contacted authors of trials for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of non-benzodiazepine GABA agonist drugs in people with antipsychotic-induced TD and schizophrenia or other chronic mental illness.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected and critically appraised studies, extracted and analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD). We assumed that people who left early had no improvement. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 11 studies that randomised 343 people. Overall, the risk of bias in the included studies was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting; allocation concealment was not described, generation of the sequence was not explicit, participants and outcome assessors were not clearly blinded. For some studies we were unsure if data were complete, and data were often poorly or selectively reported.\nData from six trials showed that there may be a clinically important improvement in TD symptoms after GABA agonist treatment compared with placebo at six to eight weeks follow-up (6 RCTs, n = 258, RR 0.83, CI 0.74 to 0.92; low-quality evidence). Data from five studies showed no difference between GABA agonist treatment and placebo for deterioration of TD symptoms (5 RCTs, n = 136, RR 1.90, CI 0.70 to 5.16; very low-quality evidence). Studies reporting adverse events found a significant effect favouring placebo compared with baclofen, sodium valproate or progabide for dizziness/confusion (3 RCTs, n = 62 RR 4.54, CI 1.14 to 18.11; very low-quality evidence) and sedation/drowsiness (4 RCTS, n = 144, RR 2.29, CI 1.08 to 4.86; very low-quality evidence). Studies reporting on akathisia (RR 1.05, CI 0.32 to 3.49, 2 RCTs, 80 participants), ataxia (RR 3.25, CI 0.36 to 29.73, 2 RCTs, 95 participants), nausea/vomiting (RR 2.61, CI 0.79 to 8.67, 2 RCTs, 64 participants), loss of muscle tone (RR 3.00, CI 0.15 to 59.89, 1 RCT, 10 participants), seizures (RR 3.00, CI 0.24 to 37.67, 1 RCT, 2 participants), hypotension (RR 3.04, CI 0.33 to 28.31, 2 RCTs, 119 participants) found no significant difference between GABA drug and placebo (very low-quality evidence). Evidence on mental state also showed no effect between treatment groups (6 RCTS, n = 121, RR 2.65, CI 0.71 to 9.86; very low-quality evidence) as did data for leaving the study early (around 10% in both groups, 6 RCTS, n = 218, RR 1.47, CI 0.69 to 3.15; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life, a group of outcomes selected as being of particular importance to patients.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the evidence of the effects of baclofen, progabide, sodium valproate or tetrahydroisoxazolopyridinol (THIP) for people with antipsychotic-induced TD. Evidence is inconclusive and unconvincing. The quality of data available for main outcomes ranges from very low to low. Any possible benefits are likely to be outweighed by the adverse effects associated with their use.\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": ".\nPeople with schizophrenia often hear voices and see things (hallucinations) and have strange beliefs (delusions). The main treatment of schizophrenia is antipsychotic drugs. However, these drugs can have debilitating side effects. Tardive dyskinesia is an involuntary movement that causes the face, mouth, tongue and jaw to convulse, spasm and grimace. It is caused by long-term or high-dose antipsychotic drugs, is difficult to treat and can be incurable. GABA agonist drugs have been used to treat tardive dyskinesia but have intense sedative properties and may make mental health or psychotic symptoms worse. GABA agonist drugs include baclofen, progabide, sodium valproate, and tetrahydroisoxazolopyridinol (THIP)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23736
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a major comorbidity in hospitalised patients. Patients with severe AKI require continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) when they are haemodynamically unstable. CRRT is prescribed assuming it is delivered over 24 hours. However, it is interrupted when the extracorporeal circuits clot and the replacement is required. The interruption may impair the solute clearance as it causes under dosing of CRRT. To prevent the circuit clotting, anticoagulation drugs are frequently used.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for preventing clotting in the extracorporeal circuits during CRRT.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 September 2019 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 selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs or cluster RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of pharmacological interventions to prevent clotting of extracorporeal circuits during CRRT.\nData collection and analysis\nData were abstracted and assessed independently by two authors. Dichotomous outcomes were calculated as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary review outcomes were major bleeding, successful prevention of clotting (no need of circuit change in the first 24 hours for any reason), and death. Evidence certainty was determined using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nA total of 34 completed studies (1960 participants) were included in this review. We identified seven ongoing studies which we plan to assess in a future update of this review. No included studies were free from risk of bias. We rated 30 studies for performance bias and detection bias as high risk of bias. We rated 18 studies for random sequence generation,  six studies for the allocation concealment, three studies for performance bias, three studies for detection bias, nine studies for attrition bias, 14 studies for selective reporting and nine studies for the other potential source of bias, as having low risk of bias.\nWe identified eight studies (581 participants) that compared citrate with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Compared to UFH, citrate probably reduces major bleeding (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.62; moderate certainty evidence) and probably increases successful prevention of clotting (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.87; moderate certainty evidence). Citrate may have little or no effect on death at 28 days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, moderate certainty evidence). Citrate versus UFH may reduce the number of participants who drop out of treatment due to adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49; low certainty evidence). Compared to UFH, citrate may make little or no difference to the recovery of kidney function (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; low certainty evidence). Compared to UFH, citrate may reduce thrombocytopenia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.03; low certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether citrate reduces a cost to health care services because of inadequate data.\nFor low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus UFH, six studies (250 participants) were identified. Compared to LMWH, UFH may reduce major bleeding (0.58, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.58; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether UFH versus LMWH reduces death at 28 days or leads to successful prevention of clotting. Compared to LMWH, UFH may reduce the number of patient dropouts from adverse events (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.53; low certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether UFH versus LMWH leads to the recovery of kidney function because no included studies reported this outcome. It was uncertain whether UFH versus LMWH leads to thrombocytopenia. It was uncertain whether UFH reduces a cost to health care services because of inadequate data.\nFor the comparison of UFH to no anticoagulation, one study (10 participants) was identified. It is uncertain whether UFH compare to no anticoagulation leads to more major bleeding. It is uncertain whether UFH improves successful prevention of clotting in the first 24 hours, death at 28 days, the number of patient dropouts due to adverse events, recovery of kidney function, thrombocytopenia, or cost to health care services because no study reported these outcomes.\nFor the comparison of citrate to no anticoagulation, no completed study was identified.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, available evidence does not support the overall superiority of any anticoagulant to another. Compared to UFH, citrate probably reduces major bleeding and prevents clotting and probably has little or no effect on death at 28 days. For other pharmacological anticoagulation methods, there is no available data showing overall superiority to citrate or no pharmacological anticoagulation. Further studies are needed to identify patient populations in which CRRT should commence with no pharmacological anticoagulation or with citrate.\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": "Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major comorbidity in hospitalised patients. Patients with severe AKI require renal replacement therapy. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is a type of blood dialysis therapy that is generally used for critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. Due to the slow clearance of waste products, CRRT typically runs continuously for 24 hours. Clotting in the dialysis circuits requires immediate circuit changes and leads to treatment interruption and inadequate treatment. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different medications to prevent clotting of circuits in CRRT."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23737
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events, especially in people receiving anticoagulation treatments.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and other anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a literature search including a comprehensive electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching conference proceedings; checking references of included studies; and a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we run searches continually, incorporating new evidence after it is identified. Last search date 14 May 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of long-term treatment with LMWHs, DOACs, VKAs, or other anticoagulants in people with cancer and symptomatic VTE.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data in duplicate on study characteristics and risk of bias. Outcomes included: all-cause mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (QoL). We assessed the certainty of the evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook [GRADE handbook]).\nMain results\nOf 3583 citations,19 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria.\nLow molecular weight heparins versus vitamin K antagonists\nEight studies enrolling 2327 participants compared LMWHs with VKAs. Meta-analysis of five studies probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on mortality up to 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 45 fewer to 48 more; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of four studies did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on major bleeding (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.12; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more, moderate-certainty evidence) or minor bleeding (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; RD 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 92 fewer to 47 more; low-certainty evidence), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.69). Meta-analysis of five studies showed that LMWHs probably reduced the recurrence of VTE compared to VKAs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; RD 53 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 29 fewer to 72 fewer, moderate-certainty evidence).\nDirect oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists\nFive studies enrolling 982 participants compared DOACs with VKAs. Meta-analysis of four studies may not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to VKAs on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 51 fewer to 37 more; low-certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.31; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 12 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.57, RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 54 fewer to 28 more; low-certainty evidence). One study reporting on DOAC versus VKA was published as abstract so is not included in the main analysis.\nDirect oral anticoagulants versus low molecular weight heparins\nTwo studies enrolling 1455 participants compared DOAC with LMWH. The study by Raskob did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to LMWH on mortality up to 12 months of follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25; RD 27 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 95 more; low-certainty evidence). The data also showed that DOACs may have shown a likely reduction in VTE recurrence up to 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; RD 36 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 1 more; low-certainty evidence). DOAC may have increased major bleeding at 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.88; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 78 more; low-certainty evidence) and likely increased minor bleeding up to 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 92 more; low-certainty evidence). The second study on DOAC versus LMWH was published as an abstract and is not included in the main analysis.\nIdraparinux versus vitamin K antagonists\nOne RCT with 284 participants compared once-weekly subcutaneous injection of idraparinux versus standard treatment (parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin or acenocoumarol) for three or six months. The data probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of idraparinux compared to VKAs on mortality at six months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; RD 31 more per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 167 more; moderate-certainty evidence), VTE recurrence at six months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.32; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 25 more; low-certainty evidence) or major bleeding (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.56; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 98 more; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor the long-term treatment of VTE in people with cancer, evidence shows that LMWHs compared to VKAs probably produces an important reduction in VTE and DOACs compared to LMWH, may likely reduce VTE but may increase risk of major bleeding. Decisions for a person with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWHs versus oral anticoagulation should balance benefits and harms and integrate the person's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.\nEditorial note: this is a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs offer new approaches to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched scientific databases for clinical trials looking at the effects of long-term treatment with different blood thinners on blood clot recurrence in people with cancer with a confirmed diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (a blood clot in the limbs) or pulmonary embolism (a blood clot in the lungs). We included trials with any type of cancer, and irrespective of the type of cancer treatment. The trials looked at survival, recurrent blood clot, bleeding and blood platelet levels (which are involved in blood clotting). The evidence was current to May 2021."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23738
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFrequent consumption of excess amounts of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) is a risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dental caries. Environmental interventions, i.e. interventions that alter the physical or social environment in which individuals make beverage choices, have been advocated as a means to reduce the consumption of SSB.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of environmental interventions (excluding taxation) on the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and sugar-sweetened milk, diet-related anthropometric measures and health outcomes, and on any reported unintended consequences or adverse outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched 11 general, specialist and regional databases from inception to 24 January 2018. We also searched trial registers, reference lists and citations, scanned websites of relevant organisations, and contacted study authors.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies on interventions implemented at an environmental level, reporting effects on direct or indirect measures of SSB intake, diet-related anthropometric measures and health outcomes, or any reported adverse outcome. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) and interrupted-time-series (ITS) studies, implemented in real-world settings with a combined length of intervention and follow-up of at least 12 weeks and at least 20 individuals in each of the intervention and control groups. We excluded studies in which participants were administered SSB as part of clinical trials, and multicomponent interventions which did not report SSB-specific outcome data. We excluded studies on the taxation of SSB, as these are the subject of a separate Cochrane Review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risks of bias of included studies. We classified interventions according to the NOURISHING framework, and synthesised results narratively and conducted meta-analyses for two outcomes relating to two intervention types. We assessed our confidence in the certainty of effect estimates with the GRADE framework as very low, low, moderate or high, and presented ‘Summary of findings’ tables.\nMain results\nWe identified 14,488 unique records, and assessed 1030 in full text for eligibility. We found 58 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, including 22 RCTs, 3 NRCTs, 14 CBA studies, and 19 ITS studies, with a total of 1,180,096 participants. The median length of follow-up was 10 months. The studies included children, teenagers and adults, and were implemented in a variety of settings, including schools, retailing and food service establishments. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, and most studies used non-randomised designs. The studies examine a broad range of interventions, and we present results for these separately.\nLabelling interventions (8 studies): We found moderate-certainty evidence that traffic-light labelling is associated with decreasing sales of SSBs, and low-certainty evidence that nutritional rating score labelling is associated with decreasing sales of SSBs. For menu-board calorie labelling reported effects on SSB sales varied.\nNutrition standards in public institutions (16 studies): We found low-certainty evidence that reduced availability of SSBs in schools is associated with decreased SSB consumption. We found very low-certainty evidence that improved availability of drinking water in schools and school fruit programmes are associated with decreased SSB consumption. Reported associations between improved availability of drinking water in schools and student body weight varied.\nEconomic tools (7 studies): We found moderate-certainty evidence that price increases on SSBs are associated with decreasing SSB sales. For price discounts on low-calorie beverages reported effects on SSB sales varied.\nWhole food supply interventions (3 studies): Reported associations between voluntary industry initiatives to improve the whole food supply and SSB sales varied.\nRetail and food service interventions (7 studies): We found low-certainty evidence that healthier default beverages in children’s menus in chain restaurants are associated with decreasing SSB sales, and moderate-certainty evidence that in-store promotion of healthier beverages in supermarkets is associated with decreasing SSB sales. We found very low-certainty evidence that urban planning restrictions on new fast-food restaurants and restrictions on the number of stores selling SSBs in remote communities are associated with decreasing SSB sales. Reported associations between promotion of healthier beverages in vending machines and SSB intake or sales varied.\nIntersectoral approaches (8 studies): We found moderate-certainty evidence that government food benefit programmes with restrictions on purchasing SSBs are associated with decreased SSB intake. For unrestricted food benefit programmes reported effects varied. We found moderate-certainty evidence that multicomponent community campaigns focused on SSBs are associated with decreasing SSB sales. Reported associations between trade and investment liberalisation and SSB sales varied.\nHome-based interventions (7 studies): We found moderate-certainty evidence that improved availability of low-calorie beverages in the home environment is associated with decreased SSB intake, and high-certainty evidence that it is associated with decreased body weight among adolescents with overweight or obesity and a high baseline consumption of SSBs.\nAdverse outcomes reported by studies, which may occur in some circumstances, included negative effects on revenue, compensatory SSB consumption outside school when the availability of SSBs in schools is reduced, reduced milk intake, stakeholder discontent, and increased total energy content of grocery purchases with price discounts on low-calorie beverages, among others. The certainty of evidence on adverse outcomes was low to very low for most outcomes.\nWe analysed interventions targeting sugar-sweetened milk separately, and found low- to moderate-certainty evidence that emoticon labelling and small prizes for the selection of healthier beverages in elementary school cafeterias are associated with decreased consumption of sugar-sweetened milk. We found low-certainty evidence that improved placement of plain milk in school cafeterias is not associated with decreasing sugar-sweetened milk consumption.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence included in this review indicates that effective, scalable interventions addressing SSB consumption at a population level exist. Implementation should be accompanied by high-quality evaluations using appropriate study designs, with a particular focus on the long-term effects of approaches suitable for large-scale implementation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why are SSBs an important health topic?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Research shows that people who drink a lot of SSBs often gain weight. Drinking a lot of SSBs can also increase the risk of diabetes, heart disease, and dental decay. Doctors therefore recommend that children, teenagers and adults drink fewer SSBs. Governments, businesses, schools and workplaces have taken various measures to support healthier beverage choices."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23739
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFasting during Ramadan is obligatory for adult Muslims, except those who have a medical illness. Many Muslims with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) choose to fast, which may increase their risks of hypoglycaemia and dehydration.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment.\nFour trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nOne trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nThree trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nOne trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no clear evidence of the benefits or harms of interventions for individuals with T2DM who fast during Ramadan. All results should be interpreted with caution due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies, which give rise to low- to very low-certainty evidence. Major outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life and severe hypoglycaemia, were rarely evaluated. Sufficiently powered studies that examine the effects of various interventions on these outcomes are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 17 studies with a total of 5359 participants. These studies were conducted for at least four weeks during Ramadan, and participants were followed up for at least four weeks. The included studies compared the use of sulphonylureas with the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (four studies), meglitinides (two studies), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (one study) and glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues (three studies) during Ramadan. Two studies compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. Other studies compared usual care with telemedicine (two studies), Ramadan-focused patient education (two studies) and a reduction in drug dosage during Ramadan (one study)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23740
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPancreatic pseudocysts are walled-off peripancreatic fluid collections. There is considerable uncertainty about how pancreatic pseudocysts should be treated.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of different management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9, and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until September 2015. We also searched the references of included trials and contacted trial authors.\nSelection criteria\nWe only considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with pancreatic pseudocysts, regardless of size, presence of symptoms, or aetiology. We placed no restrictions on blinding, language, or publication status of the trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with RevMan 5, based on an available-case analysis for direct comparisons, using fixed-effect and random-effect models. We also conducted indirect comparisons (rather than network meta-analysis), since there were no outcomes for which direct and indirect evidence were available.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs, with 177 participants, in this review. After one participant was excluded, 176 participants were randomised to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage (88 participants), endoscopic drainage (44 participants), EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage (24 participants), and open surgical drainage (20 participants). The comparisons included endoscopic drainage versus EUS-guided drainage (two trials), EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage versus EUS-guided drainage alone (one trial), and open surgical drainage versus EUS-guided drainage (one trial). The participants were mostly symptomatic, with pancreatic pseudocysts resulting from acute and chronic pancreatitis of varied aetiology. The mean size of the pseudocysts ranged between 70 mm and 155 mm across studies. Although the trials appeared to include similar types of participants for all comparisons, we were unable to assess this statistically, since there were no direct and indirect results for any of the comparisons.\nAll the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. One death occurred in the endoscopic drainage group (1/44; 2.3%), due to bleeding. There were no deaths in the other groups. The differences in the serious adverse events were imprecise. Short-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL; four weeks to three months) was worse (MD -21.00; 95% CI -33.21 to -8.79; participants = 40; studies = 1; range: 0 to 100; higher score indicates better) and the costs were higher in the open surgical drainage group than the EUS-guided drainage group (MD 8040 USD; 95% CI 3020 to 13,060; participants = 40; studies = 1). There were fewer adverse events in the EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage group than in the EUS-guided drainage alone (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.73; participants = 47; studies = 1), or the endoscopic drainage group (indirect comparison: OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61). Participants with EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage also had shorter hospital stays compared to EUS-guided drainage alone (MD -8.10 days; 95% CI -9.79 to -6.41; participants = 47; studies = 1), endoscopic drainage (indirect comparison: MD -7.10 days; 95% CI -9.38 to -4.82), or open surgical drainage group (indirect comparison: MD -12.30 days; 95% CI -14.48 to -10.12). The open surgical drainage group had longer hospital stays than the EUS-guided drainage group (MD 4.20 days; 95% CI 2.82 to 5.58; participants = 40; studies = 1); the endoscopic drainage group had longer hospital stays than the open drainage group (indirect comparison: -5.20 days; 95% CI -7.26 to -3.14). The need for additional invasive interventions was higher for the endoscopic drainage group than the EUS-guided drainage group (OR 11.13; 95% CI 2.85 to 43.44; participants = 89; studies = 2), and the open drainage group (indirect comparison: OR 23.69; 95% CI 1.40 to 400.71). The differences between groups were imprecise for the other comparisons that could be performed. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, medium-term HRQoL (three months to one year), long-term HRQoL (longer than one year), time-to-return to normal activities, or time-to-return to work.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low-quality evidence suggested that the differences in mortality and serious adverse events between treatments were imprecise. Low-quality evidence suggested that short-term HRQoL (four weeks to three months) was worse, and the costs were higher in the open surgical drainage group than in the EUS-guided drainage group. Low-quality or very low-quality evidence suggested that EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage led to fewer adverse events than EUS-guided or endoscopic drainage, and shorter hospital stays when compared to EUS-guided drainage, endoscopic drainage, or open surgical drainage, while EUS-guided drainage led to shorter hospital stays than open surgical drainage. Low-quality evidence suggested that there was a higher need for additional invasive procedures with endoscopic drainage than EUS-guided drainage, while it was lower in the open surgical drainage than in the endoscopic drainage group.\nFurther RCTs are needed to compare EUS-guided drainage, with or without nasocystic drainage, in symptomatic patients with pancreatic pseudocysts that require treatment. Future trials should include patient-oriented outcomes such as mortality, serious adverse events, HRQoL, hospital stay, return-to-normal activity, number of work days lost, and the need for additional procedures, for a minimum follow-up period of two to three years.\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 four trials, with 177 participants, in the review, 176 of whom were included in the analyses. The treatments compared in the four trials included endoscopic drainage (without EUS guidance), EUS-guided drainage, EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage, and open surgical drainage. The participants were mostly people with pancreatic pseudocysts resulting from sudden onset or long-term inflammation of the pancreas, from different causes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23741
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBranch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is the second most common cause of retinal vascular abnormality after diabetic retinopathy. Persistent macular oedema develops in 60% of eyes with a BRVO. Untreated, only 14% of eyes with chronic macular oedema will have a visual acuity (VA) of 20/40 or better. Macular grid laser photocoagulation is used for chronic non-ischaemic macular oedema following BRVO and has been the mainstay of treatment for over 20 years. New treatments are available and a systematic review is necessary to ensure that the most up-to-date evidence is considered objectively.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects of macular grid laser photocoagulation in the treatment of macular oedema following BRVO.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 21 August 2014.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing macular grid laser photocoagulation treatment to another treatment, sham treatment or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included five studies conducted in Europe and North America. Four separate trials compared grid laser to no treatment, sham treatment, intravitreal bevacizumab and intravitreal triamcinolone. One further trial compared subthreshold to threshold laser. Two of these trials were judged to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains.\nIn one trial of grid laser versus observation, people receiving grid laser were more likely to gain visual acuity (VA) (10 or more ETDRS letters) at 36 months (RR 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.84, 78 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The effect of grid laser on loss of VA (10 or more letters) was uncertain as the results were imprecise (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.04, 78 participants, moderate-quality evidence). On average, people receiving grid laser had better improvement in VA (mean difference (MD) 0.11 logMAR, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17, high-quality evidence). In a trial of early and delayed grid laser treatment versus sham laser (n = 108, data available for 99 participants), no participant gained or lost VA (15 or more ETDRS letters). At 12 months, there was no evidence for a difference in change in VA (from baseline) between early grid laser and sham laser (MD -0.03 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.01, 68 participants, low-quality evidence) or between delayed grid laser and sham laser (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04, 66 participants, low-quality evidence).\nThe relative effects of subthreshold and threshold laser were uncertain. In one trial, the RR for gain of VA (15 or more letters) at 12 months was 1.68 (95% CI 0.57 to 4.95, 36 participants, moderate-quality evidence); the RR for loss of VA (15 or more letters) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.06 to 5.63, moderate-quality evidence); and at 24 months the change in VA from baseline was MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.24, moderate-quality evidence).\nThe relative effects of macular grid laser and intravitreal bevacizumab were uncertain. In one trial, the RR for gain of 15 or more letters at 12 months was 0.67 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.14, 30 participants, low-quality evidence). Loss of 15 or more letters was not reported. Change in VA at 12 months was MD 0.11 logMAR (95% CI -0.36 to 0.14, low-quality evidence).\nThe relative effects of grid laser and 1mg triamcinolone were uncertain at 12 months. RR for gain of VA (15 or more letters) was 1.13 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.71, 1 RCT, 242 participants, moderate-quality evidence); RR for loss of VA (15 or more letters) was 1.20 (95% CI 0.63 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence); MD for change in VA was -0.03 letters (95% CI -0.12 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence). Similar results were seen for the comparison with 4mg triamcinolone. Beyond 12 months, the visual outcomes were in favour of grid laser at 24 months and 36 months with people in the macular grid group gaining more VA.\nFour studies reported on adverse effects. Laser photocoagulation appeared to be well tolerated in the studies. One participant (out of 71) suffered a perforation of Bruch's membrane, but this did not affect visual acuity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-quality evidence from one RCT supports the use of grid laser photocoagulation to treat macular oedema following BRVO. There was insufficient evidence to support the use of early grid laser or subthreshold laser. There was insufficient evidence to show a benefit of intravitreal triamcinolone or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) over macular grid laser photocoagulation in BRVO. With recent interest in the use of intravitreal anti-VEGF or steroid therapy, assessment of treatment efficacy (change in visual acuity and foveal or central macular thickness using optical coherence tomography (OCT)) and the number of treatments needed for maintenance and long-term safety will be important for future studies.\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 looked primarily at the proportion of participants gaining or losing significant vision. The trial comparing grid laser to no laser showed a clear benefit for grid laser. The result of the trial comparing early grid laser to delayed grid laser for macular BRVO (a subgroup of BRVO in which the occlusion is limited to a small vessel draining a sector of the macular region) was uncertain, and the quality of the evidence was low. We could not be certain that bevacizumab injections were better than grid laser treatment, because the effect was imprecise and the quality of the evidence was low. We could not be certain if subthreshold diode laser treatment was better than threshold laser treatment because the results were imprecise. The trial comparing grid laser treatment to triamcinolone (steroid) injection was imprecise, but there was a suggestion of a benefit for grid laser over 1 mg triamcinolone at 36 months and a benefit for grid laser over 4 mg triamcinolone at 24 months. Two of the five studies were at risk of bias, meaning that there were problems with the design and execution of two of the five studies which raised questions about the validity of these two studies.\nFour of the five studies reported on adverse outcomes. Grid laser was well tolerated within these studies. One participant had an apparent perforation of Bruch's membrane (a membrane under the macula) following laser but this did not affect their vision. Bevacizumab injection was also well tolerated with only minor local side effects (transient red eye and superficial bleeding). Participants receiving triamcinolone injection were at risk of developing a raised eye pressure that required medication or surgery, at risk of developing a cataract, and at risk of developing a serious eye infection (endophthalmitis)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23742
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization (WHO) in 2015 stated atovaquone-proguanil can be used in travellers, and is an option in malaria-endemic areas in combination with artesunate, as an alternative treatment where first-line artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is not available or effective. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review undertaken in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of atovaquone-proguanil (alone and in combination with artemisinin drugs) versus other antimalarial drugs for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in adults and children.\nSearch methods\nThe date of the last trial search was 30 January 2020. Search locations for published trials included the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. To include recently published and unpublished trials, we also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting efficacy and safety data for atovaquone-proguanil or atovaquone-proguanil with a partner drug compared with at least one other antimalarial drug for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum infection.\nData collection and analysis\nFor this update, two review authors re-extracted data and assessed certainty of evidence. We meta-analyzed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons. Outcome measures include unadjusted treatment failures and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-adjusted treatment failures. PCR adjustment differentiates new infection from recrudescent infection.\nMain results\nSeventeen RCTs met our inclusion criteria providing 4763 adults and children from Africa, South-America, and South-East Asia. Eight trials reported PCR-adjusted data to distinguish between new and recrudescent infection during the follow-up period. In this abstract, we report only the comparisons against the three WHO-recommended antimalarials which were included within these trials.\nThere were two comparisons with artemether-lumefantrine, one trial from 2008 in Ethiopia with 60 participants had two failures with atovaquone-proguanil compared to none with artemether-lumefantrine (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 28). A second trial from 2012 in Colombia with 208 participants had one failure in each arm (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 42).\nThere was only one comparison with artesunate-amodiaquine from a 2014 trial conducted in Cameroon. There were six failures with atovaquone-proguanil at day 28 and two with artesunate-amodiaquine (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 28: 9.4% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 2.9% with artesunate-amodiaquine; RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 15.22; 1 RCT, 132 participants; low-certainty evidence), although there was a similar number of PCR-unadjusted treatment failures (9 (14.1%) with atovaquone-proguanil and 8 (11.8%) with artesunate-amodiaquine; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.91; 1 RCT, 132 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere were two comparisons with artesunate-mefloquine from a 2012 trial in Colombia and a 2002 trial in Thailand where there are high levels of multi-resistant malaria. There were similar numbers of PCR-adjusted treatment failures between groups at day 42 (2.7% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 2.4% with artesunate-mefloquine; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.34; 2 RCTs, 1168 participants; high-certainty evidence). There were also similar PCR-unadjusted treatment failures between groups (5.3% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 6.6% with artesunate-mefloquine; RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.3; 1 RCT, 1063 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWhen atovaquone-proguanil was combined with artesunate, there were fewer treatment failures with and without PCR-adjustment at day 28 (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 28: 2.16% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to no failures with artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil; RR 5.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 43.52; 2 RCTs, 375 participants, low-certainty evidence) and day 42 (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 42: 3.82% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 2.05% with artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil (RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.95 to 3.56; 2 RCTs, 1258 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). In the 2002 trial in Thailand, there were fewer treatment failures in the artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil group compared to the atovaquone-proguanil group at day 42 with PCR-adjustment.\nWhilst there were some small differences in which adverse events were more frequent in the atovaquone-proguanil groups compared to comparator drugs, there were no recurrent associations to suggest that atovaquone-proguanil is strongly associated with any specific adverse event.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAtovaquone-proguanil was effective against uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, although in some instances treatment failure rates were between 5% and 10%. The addition of artesunate to atovaquone-proguanil may reduce treatment failure rates. Artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil and the development of parasite resistance may represent an area for further research.\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 is current to 30 January 2020."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23743
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThere is evidence from observational studies that whole grains can have a beneficial effect on risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Earlier versions of this review found mainly short-term intervention studies. There are now longer-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) available. This is an update and expansion of the original review conducted in 2007.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of whole grain foods or diets on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular risk factors (blood lipids, blood pressure) in healthy people or people who have established cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, using all eligible RCTs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (Issue 8, 2016) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 31 August 2016), Embase (1980 to week 35 2016), and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 31 August 2016) on 31 August 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 July 2017 and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 6 July 2017. We checked reference lists of relevant articles and applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected RCTs assessing the effects of whole grain foods or diets containing whole grains compared to foods or diets with a similar composition, over a minimum of 12 weeks, on cardiovascular disease and related risk factors. Eligible for inclusion were healthy adults, those at increased risk of CVD, or those previously diagnosed with CVD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies. Data were extracted and quality-checked by one review author and checked by a second review author. A second review author checked the analyses. We assessed treatment effect using mean difference in a fixed-effect model and heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and the Chi2 test of heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using GRADE with GRADEpro software.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs randomising a total of 1414 participants (age range 24 to 70; mean age 45 to 59, where reported) to whole grain versus lower whole grain or refined grain control groups. We found no studies that reported the effect of whole grain diets on total cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events (total myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, total stroke). All included studies reported the effect of whole grain diets on risk factors for cardiovascular disease including blood lipids and blood pressure. All studies were in primary prevention populations and had an unclear or high risk of bias, and no studies had an intervention duration greater than 16 weeks.\nOverall, we found no difference between whole grain and control groups for total cholesterol (mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.07 to 0.21; 6 studies (7 comparisons); 722 participants; low-quality evidence).\nUsing GRADE, we assessed the overall quality of the available evidence on cholesterol as low. Four studies were funded by independent national and government funding bodies, while the remaining studies reported funding or partial funding by organisations with commercial interests in cereals.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence from RCTs of an effect of whole grain diets on cardiovascular outcomes or on major CVD risk factors such as blood lipids and blood pressure. Trials were at unclear or high risk of bias with small sample sizes and relatively short-term interventions, and the overall quality of the evidence was low. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs with longer durations assessing cardiovascular events as well as cardiovascular risk factors.\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 evaluated nine randomised studies assessing the effects of whole grain diets compared to diets with refined grains or a usual diet on levels of cholesterol in the blood or blood pressure (major risk factors for cardiovascular disease including heart attacks or stroke). The evidence is current to August 2016."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23744
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFear of falling is common in older people and associated with serious physical and psychosocial consequences. Exercise (planned, structured, repetitive and purposive physical activity aimed at improving physical fitness) may reduce fear of falling by improving strength, gait, balance and mood, and reducing the occurrence of falls.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits, harms and costs) of exercise interventions for reducing fear of falling in older people living in the community.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (July 2013), the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to July Week 3 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 Week 30), CINAHL (1982 to July 2013), PsycINFO (1967 to August 2013), AMED (1985 to August 2013), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (accessed 7 August 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (accessed 7 August 2013). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists and consulted experts.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised trials that recruited community-dwelling people (where the majority were aged 65 and over) and were not restricted to specific medical conditions (e.g. stroke, hip fracture). We included trials that evaluated exercise interventions compared with no intervention or a non-exercise intervention (e.g. social visits), and that measured fear of falling. Exercise interventions were varied; for example, they could be 'prescriptions' or recommendations, group-based or individual, supervised or unsupervised.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and extracted data. We combined effect sizes across studies using the fixed-effect model, with the random-effect model used where significant statistical heterogeneity was present. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and incidence rate ratios (IRR) for rate outcomes. We estimated mean differences (MD) where studies used the same continuous measures and standardised mean differences (SMD) where different measures or different formats of the same measure were used. Where possible, we performed various, usually prespecified, sensitivity and subgroup analyses.\nMain results\nWe included 30 studies, which evaluated 3D exercise (Tai Chi and yoga), balance training or strength and resistance training. Two of these were cluster-randomised trials, two were cross-over trials and one was quasi-randomised. The studies included a total of 2878 participants with a mean age ranging from 68 to 85 years. Most studies included more women than men, with four studies recruiting women only. Twelve studies recruited participants at increased risk of falls; three of these recruited participants who also had fear of falling.\nPoor reporting of the allocation methods in the trials made it difficult to assess the risk of selection bias in most studies. All of the studies were at high risk of performance and detection biases as there was no blinding of participants and outcome assessors and the outcomes were self reported. Twelve studies were at high risk of attrition bias. Using GRADE criteria, we judged the quality of evidence to be 'low' for fear of falling immediately post intervention and 'very low' for fear of falling at short or long-term follow-up and all other outcomes.\nExercise interventions were associated with a small to moderate reduction in fear of falling immediately post intervention (SMD 0.37 favouring exercise, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.56; 24 studies; 1692 participants, low quality evidence). Pooled effect sizes did not differ significantly between the different scales used to measure fear of falling. Although none of the sensitivity analyses changed the direction of effect, the greatest reduction in the size of the effect was on removal of an extreme outlier study with 73 participants (SMD 0.24 favouring exercise, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.36). None of our subgroup analyses provided robust evidence of differences in effect in terms of either the study primary aim (reduction of fear of falling or other aim), the study population (recruitment on the basis of increased falls risk or not), the characteristics of the study exercise intervention or the study control intervention (no treatment or alternative intervention). However, there was some weak evidence of a smaller effect, which included no reduction, of exercise when compared with an alternative control.\nThere was very low quality evidence that exercise interventions may be associated with a small reduction in fear of falling up to six months post intervention (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38; four studies, 356 participants) and more than six months post intervention (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.41; three studies, 386 participants).\nVery low quality evidence suggests exercise interventions in these studies that also reported on fear of falling reduced the risk of falling measured either as participants incurring at least one fall during follow-up or the number of falls during follow-up. Very low quality evidence from four studies indicated that exercise interventions did not appear to reduce symptoms of depression or increase physical activity. The only study reporting the effects of exercise interventions on anxiety found no difference between groups. No studies reported the effects of exercise interventions on activity avoidance or costs. It is important to remember that our included studies do not represent the totality of the evidence of the effect of exercise interventions on falls, depression, anxiety or physical activity as our review only includes studies that reported fear of falling.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise interventions in community-dwelling older people probably reduce fear of falling to a limited extent immediately after the intervention, without increasing the risk or frequency of falls. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether exercise interventions reduce fear of falling beyond the end of the intervention or their effect on other outcomes. Although further evidence from well-designed randomised trials is required, priority should be given to establishing a core set of outcomes that includes fear of falling for all trials examining the effects of exercise interventions in older people living in the community.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Summary of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 30 studies in the review, with a total of 2878 participants whose average age ranged from 68 to 85 years. Most studies recruited mainly women. Twelve studies recruited participants at increased risk of falls and three of these recruited people who also had fear of falling. All of the studies were at some risk of bias mainly because the participants were aware what group they were in. This lack of blinding may have influenced the study results.\nWe found low quality evidence from 24 studies that exercise interventions result in a small to moderate reduction in fear of falling immediately after the intervention. Some exploratory analyses did not enable us to determine whether this effect differed in different groups of people, such as those at high risk of falling, or with different exercise interventions, such as group or individual exercise. We are very unsure that the effect of exercise on fear of falling is maintained in the next few months after the end of the intervention.\nWe only included studies that reported fear of falling, therefore the evidence on our other outcomes (occurrence of falls, depression, anxiety and physical activity) is only a small part of the total evidence of the effects of exercise on these outcomes. However, the evidence from nine studies included in our review showing that exercise reduced the risk and number of falls is consistent with the results of another Cochrane review testing the effects of exercise on preventing falls. The evidence on the other outcomes was far less and none of the included studies reported the effects of exercise interventions on activity avoidance or costs."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23745
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAdherence to treatment, including inhaled therapies, is low in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Although psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF have been developed, no previous published systematic review has evaluated the evidence for efficacy of these interventions.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of the review was to assess the efficacy of psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). The secondary objective was to establish the most effective components, or behaviour change techniques (BCTs), used in these interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, which is compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.\nWe also searched databases (PubMed; PsycINFO; EBSCO; Scopus; OpenGrey), trials registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov), and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, with no restrictions on language, year or publication status.\nDate of search: 7 August 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF of any age, or comparing psychological interventions with usual care. We included quasi-RCTs if we could reasonably assume that the baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and completed data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and BCT coding (using the BCT Taxonomy v1) for all included trials. We resolved any discrepancies by discussion, or by consultation with a third review author as necessary. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 10 trials (1642 participants) in the review (children and adolescents in four trials; adults in five trials; and children and adults in one trial). Nine trials compared a psychological intervention with usual care; we could combine data from some of these in a number of quantitative analyses. One trial compared a psychological intervention with an active comparator (education plus problem-solving (EPS)). We identified five ongoing trials.\nPsychological interventions were generally multi-component and complex, containing an average of 9.6 BCTs (range 1 to 28). The two most commonly used BCTs included 'problem-solving' and 'instruction on how to perform the behaviour'. Interventions varied in their type, content and mode of delivery. They included a problem-solving intervention; a paper-based self-management workbook; a telehealth intervention; a group training programme; a digital intervention comprising medication reminders and lung function self-monitoring; a life-coaching intervention; a motivational interviewing (MI) intervention; a brief MI intervention (behaviour change counselling); and a digital intervention combined with behaviour change sessions. Intervention duration ranged from 10 weeks to 12 months. Assessment time points ranged from six to eight weeks up to 23 months.\nPsychological interventions compared with usual care\nWe report data here for the 'over six months and up to 12 months' time point. We found that psychological interventions probably improve adherence to inhaled therapies (primary outcome) in people with CF compared with usual care (mean difference (MD) 9.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.60 to 10.40; 1 study, 588 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in our second primary outcome, treatment-related adverse events: anxiety (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.00; 1 study, 535 participants), or depression (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.60; 1 study, 534 participants), although this was low-certainty evidence. For our secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in terms of lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted MD 1.40, 95% CI -0.20 to 3.00; 1 study, 556 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of pulmonary exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.11; 1 study, 607 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or respiratory symptoms (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.40 to 3.80; 1 study, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, psychological interventions may improve treatment burden (MD 3.90, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.60; 1 study, 539 participants; low-certainty evidence). The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to moderate across these outcomes. Reasons for downgrading included indirectness (current evidence included adults only whereas our review question was broader and focused on people of any age) and lack of blinding of outcome assessors.\nPsychological interventions compared with an active comparator\nFor this comparison the overall certainty of evidence was very low, based on one trial (n = 128) comparing an MI intervention to EPS for 12 months. We are uncertain whether an MI intervention, compared with EPS, improves adherence to inhaled therapies, lung function, or quality of life in people with CF, or whether there is an effect on pulmonary exacerbations. The included trial for this comparison did not report on treatment-related adverse events (anxiety and depression). We downgraded all reported outcomes due to small participant numbers, indirectness (trials included only adults), and unclear risk of bias (e.g. selection and attrition bias).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the limited quantity of trials included in this review, as well as the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, it was not possible to identify an overall intervention effect using meta-analysis. Some moderate-certainty evidence suggests that psychological interventions (compared with usual care) probably improve adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF, without increasing treatment-related adverse events, anxiety and depression (low-certainty evidence). In future review updates (with ongoing trial results included), we hope to be able to establish the most effective BCTs (or 'active ingredients') of interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF.\nWherever possible, investigators should make use of the most objective measures of adherence available (e.g. data-logging nebulisers) to accurately determine intervention effects. Outcome reporting needs to be improved to enable combining or separation of measures as appropriate. Likewise, trial reporting needs to include details of intervention content (e.g. BCTs used); duration; intensity; and fidelity. Large trials with a longer follow-up period (e.g. 12 months) are needed in children with CF. Additionally, more research is needed to determine how to support adherence in 'under-served' CF populations.\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": "Psychological interventions are designed to help people modify their thoughts, feelings and behaviours.\nWe think that psychological interventions are probably better than usual care at helping people with CF to take their inhaled treatments, and may cause little or no harm (e.g. anxiety or depression) when measured six to 12 months after treatment.\nWe are uncertain whether motivational interviewing (MI) was better or worse than education plus problem-solving (EPS) at helping people with CF to take their inhaled treatments."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23746
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWith potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending.\nIndividuals with moderate to severe disease\nFour studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants).\nSystemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nSystemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nSystemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors.\nIndividuals with asymptomatic or mild disease\nWe did not identify any trial for this population.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors.\nCurrently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are JAK inhibitors?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "JAK inhibitors are medicines that block the activity of certain parts of the immune system that are sometimes problematic. They are taken orally (systemic) and usually are taken by people who suffer from autoimmune diseases, where the immune system attacks the body itself. JAK inhibitors might also be administered by inhalation but since this was not our focus, we refer to 'systemic JAK inhibitors' throughout the review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23747
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables.\nMain results\nIn total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups.\nThe overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%).\nUsing GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency.\nFor participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) −5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.56 to −4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD −0.96, 95% CI −1.22 to −0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD −1.40, 95% CI −1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD −1.60, 95% CI −1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI −5.91 to −0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD −1.06, 95% CI −1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP.\nIn participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD −42.00, 95% CI −87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD −2.42, 95% CI −3.90 to −0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference −12.30%, 95% CI −25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32).\nIn palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI −1.19 to −0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low).\nMost adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDifferent interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 91 studies testing 51 different drugs/applications in 4652 people with pruritus. The biggest study was in 373 people and the smallest study was in eight people. The studies took place in different countries in Europe, North America and Asia. Most studies lasted for around four to eight weeks. Pharmaceutical companies funded 17 (19%) of the 91 studies.\nAn ideal antipruritic therapy is currently lacking. However, there were enough studies to point out effects for particular causes of itch. GABA-analogues (gabapentin, pregabalin), kappa-opioid agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine), montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, cromolyn sodium, and topical capsaicin (all compared to placebo) improved itch associated with chronic kidney disease, and rifampicin (compared to placebo or active control) and flumecinol (compared to placebo) improved itch associated with liver problems. Overall, most of the drugs caused few and mild side effects. Naltrexone showed by far the most side effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23748
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMost people who are newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have advanced disease. For these people, survival is determined by various patient- and tumor-related factors, of which the performance status (PS) is the most important prognostic factor. People with PS 0 or 1 are usually treated with systemic therapies, whereas people with PS 3 or 4 most often receive supportive care. However, treatment for people with PS 2 without a targetable mutation remains unclear. Historically, people with a PS 2 cancer are frequently excluded from (important) clinical trials because of poorer outcomes and increased toxicity. We aim to address this knowledge gap, as this group of people represents a significant proportion (20% to 30%) of the total population with newly diagnosed lung cancer.\nObjectives\nTo identify the best first-line therapy for advanced lung cancer in people with performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 17 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemotherapy (with or without angiogenesis inhibitor) or immunotherapy regimens, specifically designed for people with PS 2 only or studies including a subgroup of these people.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall survival (OS), 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3. toxicity/adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. tumor response rate, 5. progression-free survival, and 6. survival rates at six and 12 months' treatment. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 22 trials in this review and identified one ongoing trial. Twenty studies compared chemotherapy with different regimens, of which 11 compared non-platinum therapy (monotherapy or doublet) versus platinum doublet. We found no studies comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy and only two abstracts analyzing chemotherapy versus immunotherapy.\nWe found that platinum doublet therapy showed superior OS compared to non-platinum therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.78; 7 trials, 697 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in six-month survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.41; 6 trials, 632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), whereas 12-month survival rates were improved for treatment with platinum doublet therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 11 trials, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PFS and tumor response rate were also better for people treated with platinum doublet therapy, with moderate-certainty evidence (PFS: HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; 5 trials, 487 participants; tumor response rate: RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.05; 9 trials, 964 participants).\nWhen analyzing toxicity rates, we found that platinum doublet therapy increased grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicities, all with low-certainty evidence (anemia: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.92; neutropenia: RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.06; all 8 trials, 935 participants).\nOnly four trials reported HRQoL data; however, the methodology was different per trial and we were unable to perform a meta-analysis.\nAlthough evidence is limited, there were no differences in 12-month survival rates or tumor response rates between carboplatin and cisplatin regimens. With an indirect comparison, carboplatin seemed to have better 12-month survival rates than cisplatin compared to non-platinum therapy.\nThe assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapy in people with PS 2 was limited. There might be a place for single-agent immunotherapy, but the data provided by the included studies did not encourage the use of double-agent immunotherapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review showed that as a first-line treatment for people with PS 2 with advanced NSCLC, platinum doublet therapy seems to be preferred over non-platinum therapy, with a higher response rate, PFS, and OS. Although the risk for grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicity is higher, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat. Since trials using checkpoint inhibitors in people with PS 2 are scarce, we identified an important knowledge gap regarding their role in people with advanced NSCLC and PS 2.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "– The preferred chemotherapy for people with moderately impaired performance status (PS) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and that have never received any treatment before should contain two medicines, one of which is a platinum-based medicine.\n– Although the risk for bone marrow damage is higher with a platinum-based medicine, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat.\n– We were unable to assess the effects of immunotherapy on moderately impaired people."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23749
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to prevent or treat a PDA. There are concerns regarding adverse effects of NSAIDs in preterm infants. Controversy exists on whether early targeted treatment of a hemodynamically significant (hs) PDA improves clinical outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of early treatment strategies versus expectant management for an hs-PDA in reducing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 31 May 2019), Embase (1980 to 31 May 2019), and CINAHL (1982 to 31 May 2019). An updated search was run on 2 October 2020 in the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-randomized trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs in which early pharmacological treatment, defined as treatment initiated within the first seven days after birth, was compared to no intervention, placebo or other non-pharmacological expectant management strategies for treatment of an hs-PDA in preterm (< 37 weeks’ postmenstrual age) or low birth weight (< 2500 grams) infants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe performed data collection and analyses in accordance with the methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality during hospital stay. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for selected clinical outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 14 RCTs that enrolled 910 infants. Seven RCTs compared early treatment (defined as treatment initiated by seven days of age) versus expectant management and seven RCTs compared very early treatment (defined as treatment initiated by 72 hours of age) versus expectant management.\nNo difference was demonstrated between early treatment versus expectant management (no treatment initiated within the first seven days after birth) for an hs-PDA for the primary outcome of ‘all-cause mortality’ (6 studies; 500 infants; typical RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.39; typical RD -0.02; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.03; moderate-certainty evidence), or other important outcomes such as surgical PDA ligation (4 studies; 432 infants; typical RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.80; typical RD -0.03; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence), chronic lung disease (CLD) (4 studies; 339 infants; typical RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.29; typical RD -0.03; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.03; moderate-certainty evidence), severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (2 studies; 171 infants; typical RR 0.83,95% CI 0.32 to 2.16; typical RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; low-certainty evidence), and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (5 studies; 473 infants; typical RR 2.34,95% CI 0.86 to 6.41; typical RD 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.08; low-certainty evidence). Infants receiving early treatment in the first seven days after birth were more likely to receive any PDA pharmacotherapy compared to expectant management (2 studies; 232 infants; typical RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.83; typical RD 0.57; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence).\nNo difference was demonstrated between very early treatment versus expectant management (no treatment initiated within the first 72 hours after birth) for an hs-PDA for the primary outcome of ‘all-cause mortality’ (7 studies; 384 infants; typical RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.53; typical RD -0.03; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; moderate-certainty evidence) or other important outcomes such as surgical PDA ligation (5 studies; 293 infants; typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.17; typical RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence), CLD (7 studies; 384 infants; typical RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.08; typical RD -0.05; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; low-certainty evidence), severe IVH (4 studies, 240 infants; typical RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.93; typical RD -0.02; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.04; moderate-certainty evidence), NEC (5 studies; 332 infants; typical RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.21; typical RD 0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; moderate-certainty evidence) and neurodevelopmental impairment (1 study; 79 infants; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.31 for moderate/severe cognitive delay at 18 to 24 months; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.71 for moderate/severe motor delay at 18 to 24 months; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.78 for moderate/severe language delay at 18 to 24 months; low-certainty evidence). Infants receiving very early treatment in the first 72 hours after birth were more likely to receive any PDA pharmacotherapy compared to expectant management (4 studies; 156 infants; typical RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.05; typical RD 0.69; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; very low-certainty evidence). Very early treatment, however, shortened the duration of hospitalization compared to expectant management (4 studies; 260 infants; MD -5.35 days; 95% CI -9.23 to -1.47; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEarly or very early pharmacotherapeutic treatment of an hs-PDA probably does not reduce mortality in preterm infants (moderate-certainty evidence). Early pharmacotherapeutic treatment of hs-PDA may increase NSAID exposure (low-certainty evidence) without likely reducing CLD (moderate-certainty evidence), severe IVH or NEC (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether very early pharmacotherapeutic treatment of hs-PDA also increases NSAID exposure (very low-certainty evidence). Very early treatment probably does not reduce surgical PDA ligation, severe IVH or NEC (moderate-certainty evidence), and may not reduce CLD or neurodevelopmental impairment (low-certainty evidence). Additional large trials that specifically include preterm infants at the highest risk of PDA-attributable morbidity, are adequately powered for patient-important outcomes and are minimally contaminated by open-label treatment are required to explore if early targeted treatment of hs-PDA improves clinical outcomes. There are currently two trials awaiting classification and two ongoing trials exploring this question.\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": "According to GRADE (a method to score the certainty of the trials supporting each outcome), the certainty of the evidence varied from very low to moderate but was moderate for the most important outcome of death."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23750
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity.\nWe excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results.\nColchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo)\nTreatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19\nAll-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWorsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nImprovement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nQuality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome.\nAdverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nSerious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nTreatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19\nAll-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAdmission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nSymptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome.\nQuality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome.\nAdverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence).\nSerious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nColchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies)\nNo studies evaluated this comparison.\nDifferent formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine\nNo studies assessed this.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events.\nWe are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo.\nNone of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine.\nWe identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available.\nEditorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified four eligible randomised trials. Three included 11,525 hospitalised people and one included 4488 non-hospitalised people. For hospitalised people, the average age was 64 years, and for non-hospitalised people, the average age was 55 years. Two studies compared colchicine and usual care with usual care alone and 2 studies compared colchicine with usual care and placebo. None of the studies reported quality of life. We also found 17 ongoing studies and 11 completed but unpublished studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
23751
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with dementia who are being cared for in long-term care settings are often not engaged in meaningful activities. We wanted to know whether offering them activities which are tailored to their individual interests and preferences could improve their quality of life and reduce agitation. This review updates our earlier review published in 2018.\nObjectives\n∙ To assess the effects of personally tailored activities on psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia living in long-term care facilities.\n∙ To describe the components of the interventions.\n∙ To describe conditions which enhance the effectiveness of personally tailored activities in this setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group’s Specialized Register, on 15 June 2022. We also performed additional searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP, to ensure that the search for the review was as up-to-date and as comprehensive as possible.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials offering personally tailored activities. All interventions included an assessment of the participants' present or past preferences for, or interest in, particular activities as a basis for an individual activity plan. Control groups received either usual care or an active control intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Our primary efficacy outcomes were agitation and participant quality of life. Where possible, we pooled data across studies using a random effects model.\nMain results\nWe identified three new studies, and therefore included 11 studies with 1071 participants in this review update. The mean age of participants was 78 to 88 years and most had moderate or severe dementia. Ten studies were RCTs (three studies randomised clusters to the study groups, six studies randomised individual participants, and one study randomised matched pairs of participants) and one study was a non-randomised clinical trial. Five studies included a control group receiving usual care, five studies an active control group (activities which were not personally tailored) and one study included both types of control group. The duration of follow-up ranged from 10 days to nine months.\nIn nine studies personally tailored activities were delivered directly to the participants. In one study nursing staff, and in another study family members, were trained to deliver the activities. The selection of activities was based on different theoretical models, but the activities delivered did not vary substantially.\nWe judged the risk of selection bias to be high in five studies, the risk of performance bias to be high in five studies and the risk of detection bias to be high in four studies.\nWe found low-certainty evidence that personally tailored activities may slightly reduce agitation (standardised mean difference −0.26, 95% CI −0.53 to 0.01; I² = 50%; 7 studies, 485 participants). We also found low-certainty evidence from one study that was not included in the meta-analysis, indicating that personally tailored activities may make little or no difference to general restlessness, aggression, uncooperative behaviour, very negative and negative verbal behaviour (180 participants). Two studies investigated quality of life by proxy-rating. We found low-certainty evidence that personally tailored activities may result in little to no difference in quality of life in comparison with usual care or an active control group (MD -0.83, 95% CI -3.97 to 2.30; I² = 51%; 2 studies, 177 participants). Self-rated quality of life was only available for a small number of participants from one study, and there was little or no difference between personally tailored activities and usual care on this outcome (MD 0.26, 95% CI −3.04 to 3.56; 42 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed adverse effects, but no adverse effects were observed.\nWe are very uncertain about the effects of personally tailored activities on mood and positive affect. For negative affect we found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little to no effect of personally tailored activities compared to usual care or activities which are not personalised (standardised mean difference -0.02, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.14; 6 studies, 632 participants). We were not able to undertake meta-analyses for engagement and sleep-related outcomes, and we are very uncertain whether personally tailored activities have any effect on these outcomes.\nTwo studies that investigated the duration of the effects of personally tailored activities indicated that the intervention effects they found persisted only during the period of delivery of the activities.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOffering personally tailored activities to people with dementia in long-term care may slightly reduce agitation. Personally tailored activities may result in little to no difference in quality of life rated by proxies, but we acknowledge concerns about the validity of proxy ratings of quality of life in severe dementia. Personally tailored activities probably have little or no effect on negative affect, and we are uncertain whether they have any effect on positive affect or mood. There was no evidence that interventions were more likely to be effective if based on one theoretical model rather than another. We included three new studies in this updated review, but two studies were pilot trials and included only a small number of participants. Certainty of evidence was predominately very low or low due to several methodological limitations of and inconsistencies between the included studies. Evidence is still limited, and we remain unable to describe optimal activity programmes. Further research should focus on methods for selecting appropriate and meaningful activities for people in different stages of dementia.\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 aimed to investigate the effects of offering people with dementia who were living in care homes activities tailored to their personal interests. This review updates our previous review from 2018."
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.