Datasets:

KenLuo
/

qls

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 24.7k rows

dataset stringclasses 1 value	id stringlengths 1 5	messages listlengths 2 2
query-laysum	24059	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMemory problems are a common cognitive complaint following stroke and can potentially affect ability to complete functional activities. Cognitive rehabilitation programmes either attempt to retrain lost or poor memory functions, or teach patients strategies to cope with them.\nSome studies have reported positive results of cognitive rehabilitation for memory problems, but the results obtained from previous systematic reviews have been less positive and they have reported inconclusive evidence. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000 and most recently updated in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether participants who have received cognitive rehabilitation for memory problems following a stroke have better outcomes than those given no treatment or a placebo control.\nThe outcomes of interest were subjective and objective assessments of memory function, functional ability, mood, and quality of life. We considered the immediate and long-term outcomes of memory rehabilitation.\nSearch methods\nWe used a comprehensive electronic search strategy to identify controlled studies indexed in the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 19 May 2016) and in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE (2005 to 7 March 2016), EMBASE 2005 to 7 March 2016), CINAHL (2005 to 5 February 2016), AMED (2005 to 7 March 2016), PsycINFO (2005 to 7 March 2016), and nine other databases and registries. Start dates for the electronic databases coincided with the last search for the previous review. We handsearched reference lists of primary studies meeting the inclusion criteria and review articles to identify further eligible studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials in which cognitive rehabilitation for memory problems was compared to a control condition. We included studies where more than 75% of the participants had experienced a stroke, or if separate data were available from those with stroke in mixed aetiology studies. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, which was then confirmed through group discussion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted the investigators of primary studies for further information where required. We conducted data analysis and synthesis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed a 'best evidence' synthesis based on the risk of bias of the primary studies included. Where there were sufficient numbers of similar outcomes, we calculated and reported standardised mean differences (SMD) using meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe included 13 trials involving 514 participants. There was a significant effect of treatment on subjective reports of memory in the short term (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.64, P = 0.01, moderate quality of evidence), but not the long term (SMD 0.31, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.64, P = 0.06, low quality of evidence). The SMD for the subjective reports of memory had small to moderate effect sizes.\nThe results do not show any significant effect of memory rehabilitation on performance in objective memory tests, mood, functional abilities, or quality of life.\nNo information was available on adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nParticipants who received cognitive rehabilitation for memory problems following a stroke reported benefits from the intervention on subjective measures of memory in the short term (i.e. the first assessment point after the intervention, which was a minimum of four weeks). This effect was not, however, observed in the longer term (i.e. the second assessment point after the intervention, which was a minimum of three months). There was, therefore, limited evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation. The evidence was limited due to the poor quality of reporting in many studies, lack of consistency in the choice of outcome measures, and small sample sizes. There is a need for more robust, well-designed, adequately powered, and better-reported trials of memory rehabilitation using common standardised outcome measures.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The quality of the evidence ranged from very low (effect on outcomes that relate to everyday activities) to moderate (effect on self-reported memory problems, memory tests, and mood measures). There were a number of flaws in these studies, such as having very few people in them, and these could have affected our findings." } ]
query-laysum	24060	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUpper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the most frequent causes of morbidity and mortality in the course of liver cirrhosis. People with liver disease frequently have haemostatic abnormalities such as hyperfibrinolysis. Therefore, antifibrinolytic amino acids have been proposed to be used as supplementary interventions alongside any of the primary treatments for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases. This is an update of this Cochrane review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register (February 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2 of 12, 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1946 to February 2015), EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1974 to February 2015), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to February 2015), LILACS (1982 to February 2015), World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal (accessed 26 February 2015), and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (accessed 26 February 2015). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. Observational studies for assessment of harms.\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using standard Cochrane methodologies and assessed according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe found no randomised clinical trials assessing antifibrinolytic amino acids for treating upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease. We did not identify quasi-randomised, historically controlled, or observational studies in which we could assess harms.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated Cochrane review identified no randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits and harms of antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease. The benefits and harms of antifibrinolytic amino acids need to be tested in randomised clinical trials. Unless randomised clinical trials are conducted to assess the trade-off between benefits and harms, we cannot recommend or refute antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver diseases.\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": "Accordingly, we cannot recommend or refute antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease." } ]
query-laysum	24061	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe optimal glycaemic control target in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes is unclear, although there is a clear link between high glucose concentrations and adverse birth outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016) and planned to search reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing different glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted data extraction, assessed risk of bias and checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included three trials, all in women with type 1 diabetes (223 women and babies). All three trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear methods of randomisation and selective reporting of outcomes. Two trials compared very tight (3.33 to 5.0 mmol/L fasting blood glucose (FBG)) with tight-moderate (4.45 to 6.38 mmol/L) glycaemic control targets, with one trial of 22 babies reporting no perinatal deaths orserious perinatal morbidity (evidence graded low for both outcomes). In the same trial, there were two congenital anomalies in the very tight, and none in the tight-moderate group, with no significant differences in caesarean section between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.73; evidence graded very low). In these two trials, glycaemic control was not significantly different between the very tight and tight-moderate groups by the third trimester, although one trial of 22 women found significantly less maternal hypoglycaemia in the tight-moderate group.\nIn a trial of 60 women and babies comparing tight (≤ 5.6 mmol/L FBG); moderate (5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L); and loose (6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L) glycaemic control targets, there were two neonatal deaths in the loose and none in the tight or moderate groups (evidence graded very low). There were significantly fewer women with pre-eclampsia (evidence graded low), fewer caesarean sections (evidence graded low) and fewer babies with birthweights greater than 90th centile (evidence graded low) in the combined tight-moderate compared with the loose group.\nThe quality of the evidence was graded low or very low for important outcomes, because of design limitations to the studies, the small numbers of women included, and wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. Many of the important outcomes were not reported in these studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn a very limited body of evidence, few differences in outcomes were seen between very tight and tight-moderate glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 diabetes, including actual glycaemic control achieved. There is evidence of harm (increased pre-eclampsia, caesareans and birthweights greater than 90th centile) for 'loose' control (FBG above 7 mmol/L). Future trials comparing interventions, rather than glycaemic control targets, may be more feasible. Trials in pregnant women with pre-existing type 2 diabetes are required.\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": "Pregnant women with diabetes need to keep their blood glucose levels stable, using diet, exercise, insulin or other drugs, clinic visits and monitoring. This review looked at the best blood glucose target for pregnant women with diabetes." } ]
query-laysum	24062	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nProlonged treatment with benzodiazepines is common practice despite clinical recommendations of short-term use. Benzodiazepines are used by approximately 4% of the general population, with increased prevalence in psychiatric populations and the elderly. After long-term use it is often difficult to discontinue benzodiazepines due to psychological and physiological dependence. This review investigated if pharmacological interventions can facilitate benzodiazepine tapering.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions to facilitate discontinuation of chronic benzodiazepine use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases up to October 2017: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP, and ISRCTN registry, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment versus placebo or no intervention or versus another pharmacological intervention in adults who had been treated with benzodiazepines for at least two months and/or fulfilled criteria for benzodiazepine dependence (any criteria).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 38 trials (involving 2543 participants), but we could only extract data from 35 trials with 2295 participants. Many different interventions were studied, and no single intervention was assessed in more than four trials. We extracted data on 18 different comparisons. The risk of bias was high in all trials but one. Trial Sequential Analysis showed imprecision for all comparisons.\nFor benzodiazepine discontinuation, we found a potential benefit of valproate at end of intervention (1 study, 27 participants; risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 6.03; very low-quality evidence) and of tricyclic antidepressants at longest follow-up (1 study, 47 participants; RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.82; low-quality evidence).\nWe found potentially positive effects on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms of pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; mean difference (MD) -3.10 points, 95% CI -3.51 to -2.69; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -1.00 points, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.87; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -3.57 points, 95% CI -5.34 to -1.80; very low-quality evidence), tricyclic antidepressants (1 study, 38 participants; MD -19.78 points, 95% CI -20.25 to -19.31; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (3 studies, 58 participants; standardised mean difference -0.95, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.19; very low-quality evidence) at end of intervention. However, the positive effect of paroxetine on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms did not persist until longest follow-up (1 study, 54 participants; MD -0.13 points, 95% CI -4.03 to 3.77; very low-quality evidence).\nThe following pharmacological interventions reduced symptoms of anxiety at end of intervention: carbamazepine (1 study, 36 participants; MD -6.00 points, 95% CI -9.58 to -2.42; very low-quality evidence), pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; MD -4.80 points, 95% CI -5.28 to -4.32; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -5.70 points, 95% CI -6.05 to -5.35; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -6.75 points, 95% CI -9.64 to -3.86; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (1 study, 18 participants; MD -1.30 points, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.32; very low-quality evidence).\nTwo pharmacological treatments seemed to reduce the proportion of participants that relapsed to benzodiazepine use: valproate (1 study, 27 participants; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90; very low-quality evidence) and cyamemazine (1 study, 124 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; very low-quality evidence). Alpidem decreased the proportion of participants with benzodiazepine discontinuation (1 study, 25 participants; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2.3 participants; low-quality evidence) and increased the occurrence of withdrawal syndrome (1 study, 145 participants; RR 4.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 21.14; NNTH 5.9 participants; low-quality evidence). Likewise, magnesium aspartate decreased the proportion of participants discontinuing benzodiazepines (1 study, 144 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; NNTH 5.8; very low-quality evidence).\nGenerally, adverse events were insufficiently reported. Specifically, one of the flumazenil trials was discontinued due to severe panic reactions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the low or very low quality of the evidence for the reported outcomes, and the small number of trials identified with a limited number of participants for each comparison, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding pharmacological interventions to facilitate benzodiazepine discontinuation in chronic benzodiazepine users. Due to poor reporting, adverse events could not be reliably assessed across trials. More randomised controlled trials are required with less risk of systematic errors ('bias') and of random errors ('play of chance') and better and full reporting of patient-centred and long-term clinical outcomes. Such trials ought to be conducted independently of industry involvement.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We identified 38 randomised controlled trials involving 2543 participants who had either been treated for more than two months with benzodiazepines, or who had been diagnosed with benzodiazepine dependence. We included studies irrespective of whether benzodiazepines were prescribed for anxiety, insomnia, or any other condition.\nThe average age of participants was around 50 years, and the majority of participants were women in most studies. Twenty-four trials were conducted in Europe; eight trials in the US or Canada; and six trials in Asia. The trials involved a wide range of medications to facilitate reduction or discontinuation of benzodiazepine use. Fourteen of the 38 included studies were partly funded by the drug manufacturer; nine studies were funded by government agencies; and 15 studies did not state the source of funding. The duration of the trials ranged between 1 and 24 weeks; the average trial duration was 9 weeks." } ]
query-laysum	24063	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgery is a common treatment modality for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), usually offered to women for whom conservative treatments have failed. Midurethral tapes have superseded colposuspension because cure rates are comparable and recovery time is reduced. However, some women will not be cured after midurethral tape surgery. Currently, there is no consensus on how to manage the condition in these women.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for treating recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive synthetic midurethral tape surgery in women; and to summarise the principal findings of economic evaluations of these interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 9 November 2018). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in women who had recurrent stress urinary incontinence after previous minimally invasive midurethral tape surgery. We included conservative, pharmacological and surgical treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors checked the abstracts of identified studies to confirm their eligibility. We obtained full-text reports of relevant studies and contacted study authors directly for additional information where necessary. We extracted outcome data onto a standard proforma and processed them according to the guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe included one study in this review. This study was later reported in an originally unplanned secondary analysis of 46 women who underwent transobturator tape for recurrent SUI after one or more previous failed operations. We were unable to use the data, as they were not presented according to the nature of the first operation.\nWe excluded 12 studies, five because they were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four because previous incontinence surgery was not performed using midurethral tape. We considered a further three to be ineligible because neither the trial report nor personal communication with the trialists could confirm whether any of the participants had previously undergone surgery with tape.\nWe had also planned to develop a brief economic commentary summarising the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations but supplementary systematic searches did not identify any such studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere were insufficient data to assess the effects of any of the different management strategies for recurrent or persistent stress incontinence after failed midurethral tape surgery. No published papers have reported exclusively on women whose first operation was a midurethral tape. Evidence from further RCTs and economic evaluations is required to address uncertainties about the effects and costs of these treatments.\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 lack of useable data means that we were unable to assess the certainty of the body of evidence." } ]
query-laysum	24064	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) represent one of the most common clinical complaints in men. Alpha-blockers are widely used as first-line therapy for men with LUTS secondary to BPO, but up to one third of men report no improvement in their LUTS after taking alpha-blockers. Anticholinergics used in addition to alpha-blockers may help improve symptoms but it is uncertain how effective they are.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of combination therapy with anticholinergics and alpha-blockers in men with LUTS related to BPO.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search of medical literature, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search was 7 August 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with LUTS secondary to BPO, ages 40 years or older, and a total International Prostate Symptom Score of 8 or greater. We excluded trials of men with a known neurogenic bladder due to spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or central nervous system disease, and those examining medical therapy for men who were treated with surgery for BPO. We performed three comparisons: combination therapy versus placebo, combination therapy versus alpha-blockers monotherapy, and combination therapy versus anticholinergics monotherapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 23 studies with 6285 randomized men across three comparisons. The mean age of participants ranged from 54.4 years to 73.9 years (overall mean age 65.7 years). Of the included studies, 12 were conducted with a single-center setting, while 11 used a multi-center setting. We only found short-term effect (12 weeks to 12 months) of combination therapy based on available evidence.\nCombination therapy versus placebo: based on five studies with 2369 randomized participants, combination therapy may result in little or no difference in urologic symptom scores (mean difference (MD) –2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) –5.55 to 0.08; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of combination therapy on quality of life (QoL) (MD –0.97, 95% CI –2.11 to 0.16; very low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy likely increases adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.47; moderate-certainty evidence); based on 252 adverse events per 1000 participants in the placebo group, this corresponds to 61 more adverse events (95% CI 10 more to 119 more) per 1000 participants treated with combination therapy.\nCombination therapy versus alpha-blockers alone: based on 22 studies with 4904 randomized participants, we are very uncertain about the effect of combination therapy on urologic symptom scores (MD –2.04, 95% CI –3.56 to –0.52; very low-certainty evidence) and QoL (MD –0.71, 95% CI –1.03 to –0.38; very low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy may result in little or no difference in adverse events rate (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence); based on 228 adverse events per 1000 participants in the alpha-blocker group, this corresponds to 23 more adverse events (95% CI 23 fewer to 78 more) per 1000 participants treated with combination therapy.\nCombination therapy compared to anticholinergics alone: based on three studies with 1218 randomized participants, we are very uncertain about the effect of combination therapy on urologic symptom scores (MD –3.71, 95% CI –9.41 to 1.98; very low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy may result in an improvement in QoL (MD –1.49, 95% CI –1.88 to –1.11; low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy likely results in little to no difference in adverse events (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.95; moderate-certainty evidence); based on 115 adverse events per 1000 participants in the anticholinergic alone group, this corresponds to 4 fewer adverse events (95% CI 7 fewer to 13 more) per 1000 participants treated with combination therapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the findings of the review, combination therapy with anticholinergics and alpha-blockers are associated with little or uncertain effects on urologic symptom scores compared to placebo, alpha-blockers, or anticholinergics monotherapy. However, combination therapy may result in an improvement in quality of life compared to anticholinergics monotherapy, but an uncertain effect compared to placebo, or alpha-blockers. Combination therapy likely increases adverse events compared to placebo, but not compared to alpha-blockers or anticholinergics monotherapy. The findings of this review were limited by study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision. We were unable to conduct any of the predefined subgroup analyses.\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": "A majority of included studies were not well conducted or reported, which is why we rated down the certainty of evidence (the confidence to state the conclusion is right) to moderate, low or very low. This means that the true effect may be substantially different from what this review found." } ]
query-laysum	24065	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal and irreversible dilatation of the smaller airways and associated with a mortality rate greater than twice that of the general population. Antibiotics serve as front-line therapy for managing bacterial load, but their use is weighed against the development of antibiotic resistance. Dual antibiotic therapy has the potential to suppress infection from multiple strains of bacteria, leading to more successful treatment of exacerbations, reduced symptoms, and improved quality of life. Further evidence is required on the efficacy of dual antibiotics in terms of management of exacerbations and extent of antibiotic resistance.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of dual antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), which includes the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), and PsycINFO, as well as studies obtained by handsearching of journals/abstracts. We also searched the following trial registries: US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We imposed no restriction on language of publication. We conducted our search in October 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials comparing dual antibiotics versus a single antibiotic for short-term (< 4 weeks) or long-term management of bronchiectasis diagnosed in adults and/or children by bronchography, plain film chest radiography, or high-resolution computed tomography. Primary outcomes included exacerbations, length of hospitalisation, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were response rates, emergence of resistance to antibiotics, systemic markers of infection, sputum volume and purulence, measures of lung function, adverse events/effects, deaths, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life. We did not apply outcome measures as selection criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of 287 records, along with the full text of seven reports. Two studies met review inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We extracted data from only one study and conducted GRADE assessments for the following outcomes: successful treatment of exacerbation; response rates; and serious adverse events.\nMain results\nTwo randomised trials assessed the effectiveness of oral plus inhaled dual therapy versus oral monotherapy in a total of 118 adults with a mean age of 62.8 years. One multi-centre trial compared inhaled tobramycin plus oral ciprofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin alone, and one single-centre trial compared nebulised gentamicin plus systemic antibiotics versus a systemic antibiotic alone. Published papers did not report study funding sources.\nEffect estimates from one small study with 53 adults showed no evidence of treatment benefit with oral plus inhaled dual therapy for the following primary outcomes at the end of the study: successful management of exacerbation - cure at day 42 (odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.01; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); number of participants with Pseudomonas aeruginosa eradication at day 21 (OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.66 to 8.24; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); and serious adverse events (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.87; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, researchers provided no evidence of treatment benefit for the following secondary outcomes: clinical response rates - relapse at day 42 (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.69; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); microbiological response rate at day 21 - eradicated (OR 2.40, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.65; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); and adverse events - incidence of wheeze (OR 5.75, 95% CI 1.55 to 21.33). Data show no evidence of benefit in terms of sputum volume, lung function, or antibiotic resistance. Outcomes from a second small study with 65 adults, available only as an abstract, were not included in the quantitative data synthesis. The included studies did not report our other primary outcomes: duration; frequency; and time to next exacerbation; nor our secondary outcomes: systemic markers of infection; exercise capacity; and quality of life. We did not identify any trials that included children.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA small number of studies in adults have generated high-quality evidence that is insufficient to inform robust conclusions, and studies in children have provided no evidence. We identified only one dual-therapy combination of oral and inhaled antibiotics. Results from this single trial of 53 adults that we were able to include in the quantitative synthesis showed no evidence of treatment benefit with oral plus inhaled dual therapy in terms of successful treatment of exacerbations, serious adverse events, sputum volume, lung function, and antibiotic resistance. Further high-quality research is required to determine the efficacy and safety of other combinations of dual antibiotics for both adults and children with bronchiectasis, particularly in terms of antibiotic resistance.\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 overall quality of the evidence was very poor, largely because one of the studies was not well described and included few participants. Information on exacerbations, exercise ability, and quality of life was not reported. We did not identify any trials that compared other types of dual antibiotic therapy, and we found none that included children. Therefore uncertainty remains concerning the use of dual antibiotics, and further high-quality studies are needed to examine the role of dual antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis." } ]
query-laysum	24066	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAdolescent substance use is a major problem in and of itself, and because it acts as a risk factor for other problem behaviours. As substance use during adolescence can lead to adverse and often long-term health and social consequences, it is important to intervene early in order to prevent progression to more severe problems. Brief interventions have been shown to reduce problematic substance use among adolescents and are especially useful for individuals who have moderately risky patterns of substance use. Such interventions can be conducted in school settings. This review set out to evaluate the effectiveness of brief school-based interventions for adolescent substance use.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of brief school-based interventions in reducing substance use and other behavioural outcomes among adolescents compared to another intervention or assessment-only conditions.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted the original literature search in March 2013 and performed the search update to February 2015. For both review stages (original and update), we searched 10 electronic databases and six websites on evidence-based interventions, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews, from 1966 to February 2015. We also contacted authors and organisations to identify any additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of brief school-based interventions for substance-using adolescents.\nThe primary outcomes were reduction or cessation of substance use. The secondary outcomes were engagement in criminal activity and engagement in delinquent or problem behaviours related to substance use.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures outlined by The Cochrane Collaboration, including the GRADE approach for evaluating the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included six trials with 1176 adolescents that measured outcomes at different follow-up periods in this review. Three studies with 732 adolescents compared brief interventions (Bls) with information provision only, and three studies with 444 adolescents compared Bls with assessment only. Reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence included risk of bias of the included studies, imprecision, and inconsistency. For outcomes that concern substance abuse, the retrieved studies only assessed alcohol and cannabis. We generally found moderate-quality evidence that, compared to information provision only, BIs did not have a significant effect on any of the substance use outcomes at short-, medium-, or long-term follow-up. They also did not have a significant effect on delinquent-type behaviour outcomes among adolescents. When compared to assessment-only controls, we found low- or very low-quality evidence that BIs reduced cannabis frequency at short-term follow-up in one study (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.14 to -0.53, n = 269). BIs also significantly reduced frequency of alcohol use (SMD -0.91; 95% CI -1.21 to -0.61, n = 242), alcohol abuse (SMD -0.38; 95% CI -0.7 to -0.07, n = 190) and dependence (SMD -0.58; 95% CI -0.9 to -0.26, n = 190), and cannabis abuse (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.02, n = 190) at medium-term follow-up in one study. At long-term follow-up, BIs also reduced alcohol abuse (SMD -0.72; 95% CI -1.05 to -0.40, n = 181), cannabis frequency (SMD -0.56; 95% CI -0.75 to -0.36, n = 181), abuse (SMD -0.62; 95% CI -0.95 to -0.29, n = 181), and dependence (SMD -0.96; 95% CI -1.30 to -0.63, n = 181) in one study. However, the evidence from studies that compared brief interventions to assessment-only conditions was generally of low quality. Brief interventions also had mixed effects on adolescents' delinquent or problem behaviours, although the effect at long-term follow-up on these outcomes in the assessment-only comparison was significant (SMD -0.78; 95% CI -1.11 to -0.45).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low- or very low-quality evidence that brief school-based interventions may be more effective in reducing alcohol and cannabis use than the assessment-only condition and that these reductions were sustained at long-term follow-up. We found moderate-quality evidence that, when compared to information provision, brief interventions probably did not have a significant effect on substance use outcomes. It is premature to make definitive statements about the effectiveness of brief school-based interventions for reducing adolescent substance use. Further high-quality studies examining the relative effectiveness of BIs for substance use and other problem behaviours need to be conducted, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Overall, the evidence was of moderate or low quality, with two outcomes found to have very low quality of evidence. There were three major issues across the studies: 1) there was no blinding of adolescents, 2) there was uncertainty as to whether participant allocation to study groups was concealed, and 3) a small total number of adolescents and number of events. None of the included studies reported information about funding source or conflicts of interest." } ]
query-laysum	24067	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.\nMain results\nWe included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.\nFor our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).\nFor our outcome ‘Serious adverse effects’ in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).\nFor our secondary outcome ‘Participant-reported short-term adverse events’, all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).\nFor our outcome ‘Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events’, fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.\nAlthough our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We include 24 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 789 people with acne scars (from searches up to November 2015). Twenty-one RCTs (706 people) enrolled both men and women, three RCTs (75 people) enrolled only women and one RCT (eight people) enrolled only men. Most of the studies we included (21 RCTs with 744 people) enrolled people with atrophic acne scars. One RCT enrolled 20 individuals with mixed atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars." } ]
query-laysum	24068	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPosterior blepharitis is common and causes ocular surface and lid damage as well as discomfort. It affects 37% to 47% of all ophthalmology patients; its incidence increasing with age. It is a multifactorial disease associated with multiple other pathologies, such as rosacea, meibomianitis, and infections. Treatment usually focuses on reliefing the symptoms by using artificial tears, lid scrubs, and warm compresses. The condition may be notoriously difficult to manage adequately once it becomes chronic. One such management approach for chronic blepharitis is the use of oral antibiotics for both their antibacterial as well as anti-inflammatory properties. There are currently no guidelines regarding the use of oral antibiotics, including antibiotic type, dosage, and treatment duration, for the treatment of chronic blepharitis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of oral antibiotic use for people with chronic blepharitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 8); 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 29 August 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antibiotics with placebo in adult participants with chronic blepharitis (including staphylococcal, seborrhoeic, or Meibomian Gland Dysfunction (MGD)).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence for six outcomes using the GRADE classification.\nMain results\nWe included two studies with 220 participants (numbers of eyes unclear). One parallel-group RCT comparing oral doxycycline (40 mg once a day) with placebo enrolled 70 participants with blepharitis and facial rosacea in the USA. Follow-up duration was three months. One three-arm RCT conducted in South Korea investigated the effect of high-dose (200 mg twice a day) and low-dose (20 mg twice a day) doxycycline versus placebo after one month of study medication. It enrolled 50 participants with chronic MGD in each study arm (i.e. 150 participants enrolled in total).\nThe two studies did not evaluate the same outcome measurements, which precluded any meta-analysis. The evidence for the effect of oral antibiotics on subjective improvement in symptoms was very uncertain. One study suggested that there was little to no effect of oral doxycycline on subjective symptoms based on the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) scores ranging from 0 to 100 (higher score indicates worse condition) (mean difference (MD) 3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) −4.61 to 11.71; n = 70) and bulbar conjunctival hyperemia ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe) (MD −0.01, 95% CI −0.38 to 0.36; n = 70) at 12 weeks. The three-arm RCT showed that oral doxycycline may slightly improve number of symptoms (MD −0.56, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.17; n = 93 (high-dose doxycycline versus placebo); MD −0.48, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.10; n = 93 (low-dose doxycycline versus placebo)) and proportion of participants with symptom improvement (risk ratio (RR) 6.13, 95% CI 2.61 to 14.42; n = 93 (high-dose doxycycline versus placebo); RR 6.54, 95% CI 2.79 to 15.30; n = 93 (low-dose doxycycline versus placebo)) at one month, but the evidence is very uncertain. We judged the certainty of evidence for subjective symptoms as very low.\nOne study evaluated aqueous tear production by Schirmer's test (mm/5 min) (higher score indicates better condition) and tear film stability by measuring tear film break-up time (TBUT) in seconds (higher score indicates better condition) at one month. We found very low certainty evidence that oral doxycycline may improve these clinical signs. The estimated MD in Schirmer's test score after one month of treatment was 4.09 mm (95% CI 2.38 to 5.80; n = 93) in the high-dose doxycycline group versus the placebo group and 3.76 mm (95% CI 1.85 to 5.67; n = 93) in the low-dose doxycycline group versus the placebo group. The estimated MD in TBUT after one month was 1.58 seconds (95% CI 0.57 to 2.59; n = 93) when comparing the high-dose doxycycline group with the placebo group, and 1.70 seconds (95% CI 0.96 to 2.44; n = 93) when comparing the low-dose doxycycline group with the placebo group. Although there was a noted improvement in these scores, their clinical importance remains uncertain.\nOne study suggested that oral doxycycline may increase the incidence of serious side effects: 18 (39%) participants in the high-dose doxycycline group, 8 (17%) in the low-dose doxycycline group, and 3 (6%) out of 47 participants in the placebo group experienced serious side effects (RR 6.13, 95% CI 1.94 to 19.41; n = 93 (high-dose doxycycline versus placebo); RR 2.72, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.64; n = 93 (low-dose doxycycline versus placebo)). Additionally, one study reported that one case of migraine headache and five cases of headache were observed in the oral doxycycline group, and one case of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was observed in the placebo group. We judged the certainty of evidence for adverse events as very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions on the use of oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis. Very low certainty evidence suggests that oral antibiotics may improve clinical signs, but may cause more adverse events. The evidence for the effect of oral antibiotics on subjective symptoms is very uncertain. Further trials are needed to provide high quality evidence on the use of oral antibiotics in the treatment of chronic blepharitis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that tested antibiotics given by mouth to treat long-lasting blepharitis." } ]
query-laysum	24069	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMalabsorption and deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins K may occur in cystic fibrosis, a genetic disorder affecting multiple organs. Vitamin K is known to play an important role in both blood coagulation and bone formation, hence the role of supplementation of vitamin K in this category needs to be reviewed. This is an updated version of the review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of vitamin K supplementation in people with cystic fibrosis and to investigate the hypotheses that vitamin K will decrease deficiency-related coagulopathy, increase bone mineral density, decrease risk of fractures and improve quality of life in people with CF. Also to determine the optimal dose and route of administration of vitamin K for people with CF (for both routine and therapeutic use).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.\nMost recent search: 12 August 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of all preparations of vitamin K used as a supplement compared to either no supplementation (or placebo) at any dose or route and for any duration, in patients with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed their risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nThree trials (total 70 participants, aged 8 to 46 years) assessed as having a moderate risk of bias were included. One trial compared vitamin K to placebo, a second to no supplementation and the third compared two doses of vitamin K. No trial in either comparison reported our primary outcomes of coagulation and quality of life or the secondary outcomes of nutritional parameters and adverse events.\nVitamin K versus control\nTwo trials compared vitamin K to control, but data were not available for analysis. One 12-month trial (n = 38) compared 10 mg vitamin K daily or placebo in a parallel design and one trial (n = 18) was of cross-over design with no washout period and compared 5 mg vitamin K/week for four-weeks to no supplementation for four-weeks. Only the 12-month trial reported on the primary outcome of bone formation; we are very uncertain whether vitamin K supplementation has any effect on bone mineral density at the femoral hip or lumbar spine (very low-quality evidence). Both trials reported an increase in serum vitamin K levels and a decrease in undercarboxylated osteocalcin levels. The cross-over trial also reported that levels of proteins induced by vitamin K absence (PIVKA) showed a decrease and a return to normal following supplementation, but due to the very low-quality evidence we are not certain that this is due to the intervention.\nHigh-dose versus low-dose vitamin K\nOne parallel trial (n = 14) compared 1 mg vitamin K/day to 5 mg vitamin K/day for four weeks. The trial did report that there did not appear to be any difference in serum undercarboxylated osteocalcin or vitamin K levels (very low-quality evidence). While the trial reported that serum vitamin K levels improved with supplementation, there was no difference between the high-dose and low-dose groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-quality evidence of any effect of vitamin K in people with cystic fibrosis. While there is no evidence of harm, until better evidence is available the ongoing recommendations by national CF guidelines should be followed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The overall quality of the evidence was judged to be very low due to risks of bias in the design of all trials and the low numbers of participants." } ]
query-laysum	24070	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients often require a rapid sequence induction (RSI) endotracheal intubation technique during emergencies or electively to protect against aspiration, increased intracranial pressure, or to facilitate intubation. Traditionally succinylcholine has been the most commonly used muscle relaxant for this purpose because of its fast onset and short duration; unfortunately, it can have serious side effects. Rocuronium has been suggested as an alternative to succinylcholine for intubation. This is an update of our Cochrane review published first in 2003 and then updated in 2008 and now in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether rocuronium creates intubating conditions comparable to those of succinylcholine during RSI intubation.\nSearch methods\nIn our initial review we searched all databases until March 2000, followed by an update to June 2007. This latest update included searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to February Week 2 2015), and EMBASE (1988 to February 14 2015 ) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) relating to the use of rocuronium and succinylcholine. We included foreign language journals and handsearched the references of identified studies for additional citations.\nSelection criteria\nWe included any RCT or CCT that reported intubating conditions in comparing the use of rocuronium and succinylcholine for RSI or modified RSI in any age group or clinical setting. The dose of rocuronium was at least 0.6 mg/kg and succinylcholine was at least 1 mg/kg.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors (EN and DT) independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality for the 'Risk of bias' tables. We combined the outcomes in Review Manager 5 using a risk ratio (RR) with a random-effects model.\nMain results\nThe previous update (2008) had identified 53 potential studies and included 37 combined for meta-analysis. In this latest update we identified a further 13 studies and included 11, summarizing the results of 50 trials including 4151 participants. Overall, succinylcholine was superior to rocuronium for achieving excellent intubating conditions: RR 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.92; n = 4151) and clinically acceptable intubation conditions (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99; n = 3992, 48 trials). A high incidence of detection bias amongst the trials coupled with significant heterogeneity provides moderate-quality evidence for these conclusions, which are unchanged from the previous update. Succinylcholine was more likely to produce excellent intubating conditions when using thiopental as the induction agent: RR 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.88; n = 2302, 28 trials). In the previous update, we had concluded that propofol was the superior induction agent with succinylcholine. There were no reported incidences of severe adverse outcomes. We found no statistical difference in intubation conditions when succinylcholine was compared to 1.2 mg/kg rocuronium; however, succinylcholine was clinically superior as it has a shorter duration of action.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSuccinylcholine created superior intubation conditions to rocuronium in achieving excellent and clinically acceptable intubating conditions.\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 in the review controlled trials from 1966 to February 2015 involving participants of all ages needing rapid intubation using rocuronium and succinylcholine . The minimum dose of rocuronium given was 0.6mg/kg and succinylcholine was 1mg/kg. We have combined the results of 50 trials, with a total of 4151 participants, which compared the effectiveness of succinylcholine versus rocuronium on intubation conditions. No major side effects from use of the drugs were reported." } ]
query-laysum	24071	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDiabetic foot ulceration (DFU) can be defined as a full-thickness wound below the ankle and is a major complication of diabetes mellitus. Despite best practice, many wounds fail to heal, and when they do, the risk of recurrence of DFU remains high. Beliefs about personal control, or influence, on ulceration are associated with better engagement with self-care in DFU. Psychological interventions aim to reduce levels of psychological distress and empower people to engage in self-care, and there is some evidence to suggest that they can impact positively on the rate of wound healing.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of psychological interventions on healing and recurrence of DFU.\nSearch methods\nIn September 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and reviewed 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) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated psychological interventions compared with standard care, education or another psychological intervention. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of wounds completely healed; time to complete wound healing; time to recurrence and number of recurrences.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility. Three authors independently screened all potentially relevant studies using the inclusion criteria and carried out data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified seven trials that met the inclusion criteria with a total of 290 participants: six RCTs and one quasi-RCT. The studies were conducted in Australia, the USA, the UK, Indonesia, Norway and South Africa. Three trials used a counselling-style intervention and one assessed an intervention designed to enhance an understanding of well-being. One RCT used a biofeedback relaxation training intervention and one used a psychosocial intervention based on cognitive behavioural therapy. A quasi-RCT assessed motivation and tailored the intervention accordingly.\nDue to the heterogeneity of the trials identified, pooling of data was judged inappropriate, and we therefore present a narrative synthesis. Comparisons were (1) psychological intervention compared with standard care and (2) psychological intervention compared with another psychological intervention.\nWe are uncertain whether there is a difference between psychological intervention and standard care for people with diabetic foot ulceration in the proportion of wounds completely healed (two trials, data not pooled, first trial RR 6.25, 95% CI 0.35 to 112.5; 16 participants, second trial RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.39; 60 participants), in foot ulcer recurrence after one year (two trials, data not pooled, first trial RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.41; 41 participants, second trial RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.05 to 7.90; 13 participants) or in health-related quality of life (one trial, MD 5.52, 95% CI -5.80 to 16.84; 56 participants). This is based on very low-certainty evidence which we downgraded for very serious study limitations, risk of bias and imprecision.\nWe are uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of wounds completely healed in people with diabetic foot ulceration depending on whether they receive a psychological intervention compared with another psychological intervention (one trial, RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.92 to 5.93; 16 participants). This is based on very low-certainty evidence from one study which we downgraded for very serious study limitations, risk of bias and imprecision.\nTime to complete wound healing was reported in two studies but not in a way that was suitable for inclusion in this review. One trial reported self-efficacy and two trials reported quality of life, but only one reported quality of life in a manner that enabled us to extract data for this review. No studies explored the other primary outcome (time to recurrence) or secondary outcomes (amputations (major or distal) or cost).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are unable to determine whether psychological interventions are of any benefit to people with an active diabetic foot ulcer or a history of diabetic foot ulcers to achieve complete wound healing or prevent recurrence. This is because there are few trials of psychological interventions in this area. Of the trials we included, few measured all of our outcomes of interest and, where they did so, we judged the evidence, using GRADE criteria, to be of very low certainty.\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 no robust evidence about the effects of psychological therapies on DFU healing and recurrence.\nThere is a need for high-quality studies that include enough people to detect a potential effect of psychological therapies on ulcer healing or reappearance. It would be helpful to agree on a set of clear measures to include in all future studies, so that results from different studies could be compared and analysed together." } ]
query-laysum	24072	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEpilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders worldwide, with an age-adjusted prevalence of 4 to 8 per 1000 population and an age-adjusted incidence of 44 per 100,000 person-years in developed countries. Monotherapy represents the best therapeutic option in people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2019, Issue 11.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and tolerability of oral clonazepam used as monotherapy for newly diagnosed epilepsy, compared with placebo or a different anti-seizure medication.\nSearch methods\nFor the latest update of this review we searched the following databases on 14 September 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to 13 September 2021). CRS Web includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs or quasi-RCTs comparing oral clonazepam used as monotherapy treatment versus placebo or a different anti-seizure medication (active comparator) in people of any age with newly diagnosed epilepsy, defined according to the clinical practical definition proposed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE).\nData collection and analysis\nThe following outcomes were considered: proportion of participants seizure-free at one, three, six, 12, and 24 months after randomization; proportion of responders (those with at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline to end of treatment); proportion of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during the treatment period or leading to discontinuation during the treatment period; proportion of dropouts/withdrawals due to side effects, lack of efficacy or other reasons; and improvement in quality of life, as assessed by validated and reliable rating scales.\nTwo review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts to assess the eligibility of publications identified by the searches. We independently extracted data from trial reports and cross-checked them for accuracy. Any disagreements between the two authors regarding data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus. We scrutinized trials and evaluated the methodological quality of all included studies. We used GRADE assessment criteria to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nTwo randomized controlled trials had already been included in the previous version of the review, with a total of 115 participants. One study compared clonazepam to carbamazepine as monotherapy for participants with newly diagnosed psychomotor epilepsy (a condition corresponding to what is now termed mesial temporal lobe epilepsy). One study (published as an abstract) compared clonazepam to ethosuximide as monotherapy for children with absence seizures. Based on the available data and the details on methodology provided, we judged both studies as being at unclear or high risk of bias for the domains assessed (apart from the selective reporting (reporting bias) domain - we judged one study as being at low risk of bias and the other study at high risk of bias).\nIn the study comparing clonazepam to carbamazepine, no difference was found between the groups regarding the proportion of participants who were seizure-free at one month after randomization (risk ratio (RR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 3.94; 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence), three months after randomization (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.29; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and six months after randomization (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73; 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No statistical difference was found between clonazepam and carbamazepine in terms of proportion of participants with TEAEs leading to discontinuation (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.80 to 8.52; 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in terms of dropouts/withdrawals due to side effects, lack of efficacy or other reasons (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.02; 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide any information on our other prespecified outcomes of interest.\nThe study comparing clonazepam to ethosuximide did not provide any data on efficacy. The proportion of dropouts/withdrawal was higher in the group receiving clonazepam compared to the group receiving ethosuximide (RR 3.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 11.74; 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No information on other outcomes of interest was provided in this study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not find any new studies since the last version of this review. There is only limited and very low-certainty evidence from randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of clonazepam used in monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy. No difference in efficacy and tolerability was found in a small trial comparing clonazepam to carbamazepine for the treatment of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Clonazepam was less well tolerated than ethosuximide in a trial of children with absence seizures, however no comparative data on efficacy were provided. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of clonazepam as monotherapy treatment for epilepsy.\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": "So far, the evidence on the effect in controlling seizures and the tolerability of clonazepam used as a single antiepileptic drug for the treatment of epilepsy is scarce and of very low-certainty. There is therefore insufficient information on which to base decisions on the use of clonazepam in monotherapy.\nThe evidence is current to September 2021." } ]
query-laysum	24073	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevention of varicella (chickenpox) using live attenuated varicella vaccines has been demonstrated both in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in population-based immunisation programmes in countries such as the United States and Australia. Many countries do not routinely immunise children against varicella and exposures continue to occur. Although the disease is often mild, complications such as secondary bacterial infection, pneumonitis and encephalitis occur in about 1% of cases, usually leading to hospitalisation. The use of varicella vaccine in persons who have recently been exposed to the varicella zoster virus has been studied as a form of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of vaccines for use as PEP for the prevention of varicella in children and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March week 1, 2014), EMBASE (January 1990 to March 2014) and LILACS (1982 to March 2014). We searched for unpublished trials registered on the clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP websites.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs and quasi-RCTs of varicella vaccine for PEP compared with placebo or no intervention. The outcome measures were efficacy in prevention of clinical cases and/or laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and adverse events following vaccination.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted and analysed data using Review Manager software.\nMain results\nWe identified three trials involving 110 healthy children who were siblings of household contacts. The included trials varied in study quality, vaccine used, length of follow-up and outcomes measured and, as such, were not suitable for meta-analysis. We identified high or unclear risk of bias in two of the three included studies. Overall, 13 out of 56 vaccine recipients (23%) developed varicella compared with 42 out of 54 placebo (or no vaccine) recipients (78%). Of the vaccine recipients who developed varicella, the majority only had mild disease (with fewer than 50 skin lesions). In the three trials, most participants received PEP within three days following exposure; too few participants were vaccinated four to five days post-exposure to ascertain the efficacy of vaccine given more than three days after exposure. No included trial reported on adverse events following immunisation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThese small trials suggest varicella vaccine administered within three days to children following household contact with a varicella case reduces infection rates and severity of cases. We identified no RCTs for adolescents or adults. Safety was not adequately addressed.\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 question of how to prevent chickenpox occurring in an adult or child who has been in contact with a person with the disease has led to trials of varicella vaccines in this setting. This review assessed published studies up to March 2014 and found that three separate trials investigated the effectiveness of giving varicella vaccine as post-exposure prophylaxis following household exposure of non-immune children to siblings with varicella compared to a placebo. Overall, 13 of 56 (18%) vaccine recipients developed varicella compared with 42 of 54 (78%) placebo (or no vaccine) recipients. These studies support giving varicella vaccine to a child, particularly if given within three days of contact with a chickenpox case. Although mild chickenpox may still occur in some cases, the vaccine is likely to prevent moderate to severe cases of chickenpox." } ]
query-laysum	24074	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBecause immunological aberrations might be the cause of miscarriage in some women, several immunotherapies have been used to treat women with otherwise unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of any immunotherapy, including paternal leukocyte immunization and intravenous immunoglobulin on the live birth rate in women with previous unexplained recurrent miscarriages.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 February 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized trials of immunotherapies used to treat women with three or more prior miscarriages and no more than one live birth after, in whom all recognized non-immunologic causes of recurrent miscarriage had been ruled out and no simultaneous treatment was given.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review author and the two co-authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality for all studies considered for this review.\nMain results\nTwenty trials of high quality were included. The various forms of immunotherapy did not show significant differences between treatment and control groups in terms of subsequent live births: paternal cell immunization (12 trials, 641 women), Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.70; third-party donor cell immunization (three trials, 156 women), Peto OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.82; trophoblast membrane infusion (one trial, 37 women), Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.45; or intravenous immunoglobulin, (eight trials, 303 women), Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.58.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPaternal cell immunization, third-party donor leukocytes, trophoblast membranes, and intravenous immunoglobulin provide no significant beneficial effect over placebo in improving the live birth rate.\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": "Recurrent miscarriage is three or more consecutive early miscarriages. One theory is that for some women, this might be caused by an immune system response to the embryo or fetus. Therapies that try to immunize the woman against the 'foreign' cells of a future pregnancy have been tried. Immunotherapies have included white blood cells (leukocytes) from the woman's partner or a donor, products derived from early embryos (trophoblast membranes), or antibodies derived from blood (immunoglobulin)." } ]
query-laysum	24075	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAmong pediatric patients, newborns are at highest risk of developing thromboembolism. Neonatal thromboembolic (TE) events may consist of both venous and arterial thromboses and often iatrogenic complications (eg, central catheterization). Treatment guidelines for pediatric patients with TE events most often are extrapolated from the literature regarding adults. Options for the management of neonatal TE events include expectant management; nitroglycerin ointment; thrombolytic therapy or anticoagulant therapy, or a combination of the two; and surgery. Since the 1990s, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has become the neonatal anticoagulant of choice. Reasons for its appeal include predictable dose response, no need for venous access, and limited monitoring requirements. The overall major complication rate is around 5%. Whether preterm infants are at increased risk is unclear. No data are available on the frequency of osteoporosis, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), or other hypersensitivity reactions in children and neonates exposed to LMWH.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether heparin treatment (both unfractionated heparin [UFH] and LMWH) reduces mortality and morbidity rates in preterm and term newborn infants with diagnosed thrombosis. The intervention is compared with placebo or no treatment. Also, to assess the safety of heparin therapy (both UFH and LMWH) for potential harms.\nSubgroup analyses were planned to examine gestational age, birth weight, mode of thrombus diagnosis, presence of a central line, positive family history for genetic disorders (thrombophilia, deficiency of protein S and protein C, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase [MTHFR] mutation), route of heparin administration, type of heparin used, and location of thrombus (see \"Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity\").\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 4), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to May 9, 2016), Embase (1980 to May 9, 2016), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to May 9, 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized, quasi-randomized, and cluster-randomized controlled trials comparing heparin versus placebo or no treatment in preterm and term neonates with a diagnosis of thrombosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion.\nMain results\nOur search strategy yielded 1160 references. Two review authors independently assessed all references for inclusion. We found no completed studies and no ongoing trials for inclusion.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no studies that met our inclusion criteria and no evidence from randomized controlled trials to recommend or refute the use of heparin for treatment of neonates with thrombosis.\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": "Among pediatric patients, newborns are at highest risk of thrombosis owing to differences in the neonatal hemostatic system (the system that helps bleeding to stop). Abnormal blood clot formation might start in an artery (blood going away from the heart) or in a vein (blood going toward the heart). Different management strategies have been described, ranging from \"wait and see\" to active management aimed at dissolving clots (fibrinolytic) and preventing clot formation (anticoagulant). Possible side effects of active management include secondary bleeding. However, in some cases, thrombosis can be a life-threatening event requiring active management. Despite limited evidence on anticoagulant treatment in neonates, heparin has become a standard therapy. Current recommendations and dosing regimens for anticoagulative treatment are based on uncontrolled studies and have been adapted from data derived from reports on adult and pediatric patients. The evidence is current to May 2016." } ]
query-laysum	24076	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLeg cramps are a common problem in pregnancy. Various interventions have been used to treat them, including drug, electrolyte and vitamin therapies, and non-drug therapies. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review first published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of different interventions for treating leg cramps in pregnancy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (25 September 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any intervention for the treatment of leg cramps in pregnancy compared with placebo, no treatment or other treatments. Quinine was excluded for its known adverse effects. Cluster-RCTS were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included eight small studies (576 women). Frequency of leg cramps was our primary outcome and secondary outcomes included intensity and duration of leg cramps, adverse outcomes for mother and baby and health-related quality of life. Overall, the studies were at low or unclear risk of bias. Outcomes were reported in different ways, precluding the use of meta-analysis and thus data were limited to single trials. Certainty of evidence was assessed as either low or very-low due to serious limitations in study design and imprecision.\nOral magnesium versus placebo/no treatment\nThe results for frequency of leg cramps were inconsistent. In one study, results indicated that women may be more likely to report never having any leg cramps after treatment (risk ratio (RR) 5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 23.68, 1 trial, 69 women, low-certainty evidence); whilst fewer women may report having twice-weekly leg cramps (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80, 1 trial, 69 women); and more women may report a 50% reduction in number of leg cramps after treatment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.86, 1 trial, 86 women, low-certainty evidence). However, other findings indicated that magnesium may make little to no difference in the frequency of leg cramps during differing periods of treatment.\nFor pain intensity, again results were inconsistent. Findings indicated that magnesium may make little or no difference: mean total pain score (MD 1.80, 95% CI -3.10 to 6.70, 1 trial, 38 women, low-certainty evidence). In another study the evidence was very uncertain about the effects of magnesium on pain intensity as measured in terms of a 50% reduction in pain. Findings from another study indicated that magnesium may reduce pain intensity according to a visual analogue scale (MD -17.50, 95% CI -34.68 to -0.32,1 trial, 69 women, low-certainty evidence). For all other outcomes examined there may be little or no difference: duration of leg cramps (low to very-low certainty); composite outcome - symptoms of leg cramps (very-low certainty); and for any side effects, including nausea and diarrhoea (low certainty).\nOral calcium versus placebo/no treatment\nThe evidence is unclear about the effect of calcium supplements on frequency of leg cramps because the certainty was found to be very low: no leg cramps after treatment (RR 8.59, 95% CI 1.19 to 62.07, 1 study, 43 women, very low-certainty evidence). In another small study, the findings indicated that the mean frequency of leg cramps may be slightly lower with oral calcium (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.34; 1 study, 60 women; low certainty).\nOral vitamin B versus no treatment\nOne small trial, did not report on frequency of leg cramps individually, but showed that oral vitamin B supplements may reduce the frequency and intensity (composite outcome) of leg cramps (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 study, 42 women). There were no data on side effects.\nOral calcium versus oral vitamin C\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of calcium on frequency of leg cramps after treatment compared with vitamin C (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.38, 1 study, 60 women, very low-certainty evidence).\nOral vitamin D versus placebo\nOne trial (84 women) found vitamin D may make little or no difference to frequency of leg cramps compared with placebo at three weeks (MD 2.06, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.54); or six weeks after treatment (MD 1.53, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.94).\nOral calcium-vitamin D versus placebo\nOne trial (84 women) found oral calcium-vitamin D may make little or no difference to frequency of leg cramps compared with placebo after treatment at three weeks (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.95); and six weeks (MD 0.03, 95% CI -1.3 to 1.36).\nOral calcium-vitamin D versus vitamin D\nOne trial (84 women) found oral calcium-vitamin D may make little or no difference to frequency of leg cramps compared with vitamin D after treatment at three weeks (MD -1.35, 95% CI -2.84 to 0.14); and six weeks after treatment (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.69 to 0.49).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is unclear from the evidence reviewed whether any of the interventions provide an effective treatment for leg cramps. This is primarily due to outcomes being measured and reported in different, incomparable ways so that data could not be pooled. The certainty of evidence was found to be low or very-low due to design limitations and trials being too small to address the question satisfactorily.\nAdverse outcomes were not reported, other than side effects for magnesium versus placebo/no treatment. It is therefore not possible to assess the safety of these interventions.\nThe inconsistency in the measurement and reporting of outcomes meant that meta-analyses could not be carried out. The development of a core outcome set for measuring the frequency, intensity and duration of leg cramps would address these inconsistencies and mean these outcomes could be investigated effectively in the future.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for evidence in September 2019 and identified eight randomised controlled studies, with a total of 576 women who were 14 to 36 weeks pregnant, comparing either magnesium, calcium, calcium-vitamin D or vitamin B with placebo or no treatment, and comparing vitamin C with calcium. All treatments were given as tablets to be chewed or swallowed.\nMagnesium supplements may reduce how often women experienced leg cramps when compared with placebo or no treatment, although findings were not consistent. Studies measured this in different ways, sometimes showing that magnesium helped reduce the number of leg cramps but sometimes showing that it made little or no difference. Likewise, evidence about whether magnesium reduced the intensity of pain was inconclusive with one study showing a reduction while others showed no difference. There was little or no difference in the experience of side effects, such as nausea and diarrhoea.\nCalcium did not consistently reduce how often women experienced leg cramps after treatment compared to women who did not receive any treatment. The evidence was also found to be of very low quality and so we cannot be sure of the results.\nMore women who received vitamin B supplements fully recovered compared with those women receiving no treatment; however these results were from a small sample and the study had design limitations.\nThe frequency of leg cramps was no different between women treated with calcium and those treated with vitamin C.\nThe calcium-vitamin D and the vitamin D supplements had no effect on the frequency, length, and pain intensity of leg cramps after treatment compared to women who received placebo." } ]
query-laysum	24078	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe risk of venous thromboembolism is increased in adults and enhanced by asparaginase-based chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism introduces a secondary risk of treatment delay and premature discontinuation of key anti-leukaemic agents, potentially compromising survival. Yet, the trade-off between benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is uncertain.\nObjectives\nThe primary objectives were to assess the benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis for first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism in adults with ALL receiving asparaginase-based therapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis.\nThe secondary objectives were to compare the benefits and harms of different groups of primary systemic thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the main results per type of drug (heparins, vitamin K antagonists, synthetic pentasaccharides, parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors, direct oral anticoagulants, and blood-derived products for antithrombin substitution).\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a comprehensive literature search on 02 June 2020, with no language restrictions, including (1) electronic searches of Pubmed/MEDLINE; Embase/Ovid; Scopus/Elsevier; Web of Science Core Collection/Clarivate Analytics; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and (2) handsearches of (i) reference lists of identified studies and related reviews; (ii) clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov registry; the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry; the World Health Organisation's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and pharmaceutical manufacturers of asparaginase including Servier, Takeda, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Ohara Pharmaceuticals, and Kyowa Pharmaceuticals), and (iii) conference proceedings (from the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology (ASH); the European Haematology Association (EHA); the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)). We conducted all searches from 1970 (the time of introduction of asparaginase in ALL treatment). We contacted the authors of relevant studies to identify any unpublished material, missing data, or information regarding ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs); including quasi-randomised, controlled clinical, cross-over, and cluster-randomised trial designs) comparing any parenteral/oral preemptive anticoagulant or mechanical intervention with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or comparing two different pre-emptive anticoagulant interventions in adults aged at least 18 years with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based chemotherapy regimens. For the description of harms, non-randomised observational studies with a control group were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nUsing a standardised data collection form, two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each outcome using standardised tools (RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies) and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included asymptomatic venous thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, adverse events (i.e. clinically relevant non-major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia for trials using heparins), and quality of life. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For non-randomised studies, we evaluated all studies (including studies judged to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains) in a sensitivity analysis exploring confounding.\nMain results\nWe identified 23 non-randomised studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review, of which 10 studies provided no outcome data for adults with ALL. We included the remaining 13 studies in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, in which we identified invalid control group definition in two studies and judged outcomes of nine studies to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains and outcomes of two studies at serious risk of bias.\nWe did not assess the benefits of thromboprophylaxis, as no RCTs were included. In the main descriptive analysis of harms, we included two retrospective non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at serious risk of bias. One study evaluated antithrombin concentrates compared to no antithrombin concentrates. We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.19 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on venous thromboembolism-related mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We do not know whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and quality of life in adults with ALL treated with asparaginase-based chemotherapy, as data were insufficient. The remaining study (224 participants) evaluated prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin versus no prophylaxis. However, this study reported insufficient data regarding harms including all-cause mortality, major bleeding, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and quality of life.\nIn the sensitivity analysis of harms, exploring the effect of confounding, we also included nine non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at critical risk of bias primarily due to uncontrolled confounding. Three studies (179 participants) evaluated the effect of antithrombin concentrates and six studies (1224 participants) evaluated the effect of prophylaxis with different types of heparins. When analysing all-cause mortality; venous thromboembolism-related mortality; and major bleeding (studies of heparin only) including all studies with extractable outcomes for each comparison (antithrombin and low-molecular-weight heparin), we observed small study sizes; few events; wide CIs crossing the line of no effect; and substantial heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots. Although the observed heterogeneity could arise through the inclusion of a small number of studies with differences in participants; interventions; and outcome assessments, the likelihood that bias due to uncontrolled confounding was the cause of heterogeneity is inevitable. Subgroup analyses were not possible due to insufficient data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe do not know from the currently available evidence, if thromboprophylaxis used for adults with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is associated with clinically appreciable benefits and acceptable harms. The existing research on this question is solely of non-randomised design, seriously to critically confounded, and underpowered with substantial imprecision. Any estimates of effect based on the existing insufficient evidence is very uncertain and is likely to change with future 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 review authors searched for studies that had been published up to 02 June, 2020." } ]
query-laysum	24079	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSucrose has been examined for calming and pain-relieving effects in neonates for invasive procedures such as heel lance.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of sucrose for relieving pain from heel lance in neonates in terms of immediate and long-term outcomes\nSearch methods\nWe searched (February 2022): CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and three trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials where term and/or preterm neonates received sucrose for heel lances. Comparison treatments included water/placebo/no intervention, non-nutritive sucking (NNS), glucose, breastfeeding, breast milk, music, acupuncture, facilitated tucking, and skin-to-skin care.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. We reported mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect model for continuous outcome measures. We assessed heterogeneity by the I2 test. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 55 trials (6273 infants): 29 included term neonates, 22 included preterm neonates, and four included both. Heel lance was investigated in 50 trials; 15 investigated other minor painful procedures in addition to lancing.\nSucrose vs control\nThe evidence suggests that sucrose probably results in a reduction in PIPP scores compared to the control group at 30 seconds (MD -1.74 (95% CI -2.11 to -1.37); I2 = 62%; moderate-certainty evidence) and 60 seconds after lancing (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.34 to -0.94; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effects of sucrose on DAN scores compared to water at 30 seconds after lancing (MD -1.90, 95% CI -8.58 to 4.78; heterogeneity not applicable (N/A); very low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence suggests that sucrose probably results in a reduction in NIPS scores compared to water immediately after lancing (MD -2.00, 95% CI -2.42 to -1.58; heterogeneity N/A; moderate-certainty evidence).\nSucrose vs NNS\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on PIPP scores compared to NNS during the recovery period after lancing (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.50; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence) and on DAN scores at 30 seconds after lancing (MD -1.20, 95% CI -7.87 to 5.47; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence).\nSucrose + NNS vs NNS\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose + NNS on PIPP scores compared to NNS during lancing (MD -4.90, 95% CI -5.73 to -4.07; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence) and during recovery after lancing (MD -3.80, 95% CI -4.47 to -3.13; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effects of sucrose + NNS on NFCS scores compared to water + NNS during lancing (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.27; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence).\nSucrose vs glucose\nThe evidence suggests that sucrose results in little to no difference in PIPP scores compared to glucose at 30 seconds (MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.70 to 1.22; heterogeneity not applicable; low-certainty evidence) and 60 seconds after lancing (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.75; heterogeneity N/A; low-certainty evidence).\nSucrose vs breastfeeding\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on PIPP scores compared to breastfeeding at 30 seconds after lancing (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.49 to 1.88; I2 = 94%; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on COMFORTneo scores compared to breastfeeding after lancing (MD -2.60, 95% CI -3.06 to -2.14; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence).\nSucrose vs expressed breast milk\nThe evidence suggests that sucrose may result in little to no difference in PIPP-R scores compared to expressed breast milk during (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.84; heterogeneity not applicable; low-certainty evidence) and at 30 seconds after lancing (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.71; heterogeneity N/A; low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence suggests that sucrose probably may result in slightly increased PIPP-R scores compared to expressed breast milk 60 seconds after lancing (MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.86; heterogeneity N/A; low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on DAN scores compared to expressed breast milk 30 seconds after lancing (MD -1.80, 95% CI -8.47 to 4.87; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence).\nSucrose vs laser acupuncture\nThere was no difference in PIPP-R scores between sucrose and music groups; however, data were reported as medians and IQRs.\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on NIPS scores compared to laser acupuncture during lancing (MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.43 to -0.29; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence).\nSucrose vs facilitated tucking\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on total BPSN scores compared to facilitated tucking during lancing (MD -2.27, 95% CI -4.66 to 0.12; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence) and during recovery after lancing (MD -0.31, 95% CI -1.72 to 1.10; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence).\nSucrose vs skin-to-skin + water (repeated lancing)\nThe evidence suggests that sucrose results in little to no difference in PIPP scores compared to skin-to-skin + water at 30 seconds after 1st (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.96); 2nd (MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.57 to 0.45); or 3rd lancing (MD-0.15, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.96); heterogeneity N/A, low-certainty evidence for all comparisons.\nThe evidence suggests that sucrose results in little to no difference in PIPP scores compared to skin-to-skin + water at 60 seconds after 1st (MD –0.61, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.33); 2nd (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.75); or 3rd lancing (MD-0.40, 95% CI -1.48 to 0.68); heterogeneity N/A, low-certainty evidence for all comparisons.\nMinor adverse events required no intervention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSucrose compared to control probably results in a reduction of PIPP scores 30 and 60 seconds after single heel lances (moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose compared to NNS, breastfeeding, laser acupuncture, facilitated tucking, and the effect of sucrose + NNS compared to NNS in reducing pain. Sucrose compared to glucose, expressed breast milk, and skin-to-skin care shows little to no difference in pain scores. Sucrose combined with other nonpharmacologic interventions should be used with caution, given the uncertainty of evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that investigated:\n- Sucrose compared to no treatment or standard care;\n- Sucrose compared to water, other sweet solutions (e.g. glucose);\n- Sucrose compared to another nondrug intervention (e.g. NNS);\n- Whether sucrose was effective in decreasing the amount and severity of pain that babies experienced as assessed by baby’s pain responses (e.g. crying, grimacing, heart rate) and by using standardised infant pain scales.\nWe also wanted to know if sucrose was associated with any unwanted effects in preterm or term babies.\nWe compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods." } ]
query-laysum	24080	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDementia is a worldwide concern. Its global prevalence is increasing. At present, there is no medication licensed to prevent or delay the onset of dementia. Inflammation has been suggested as a key factor in dementia pathogenesis. Therefore, medications with anti-inflammatory properties could be beneficial for dementia prevention.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group up to 9 January 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP) and six other databases to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. We also reviewed citations of reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing aspirin or other NSAIDs with placebo for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia. We included trials with cognitively healthy participants (primary prevention) or participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or cognitive complaints (secondary prevention).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the strength of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs with 23,187 participants. Because of the diversity of these trials, we did not combine data to give summary estimates, but presented a narrative description of the evidence.\nWe identified one trial (19,114 participants) comparing low-dose aspirin (100 mg once daily) to placebo. Participants were aged 70 years or older with no history of dementia, cardiovascular disease or physical disability. Interim analysis indicated no significant treatment effect and the trial was terminated slightly early after a median of 4.7 years' follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference in incidence of dementia between aspirin and placebo groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15; high-certainty evidence). Participants allocated aspirin had higher rates of major bleeding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.60, high-certainty evidence) and slightly higher mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.28; high-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in activities of daily living between groups (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence).\nWe identified three trials comparing non-aspirin NSAIDs to placebo. All three trials were terminated early due to adverse events associated with NSAIDs reported in other trials.\nOne trial (2528 participants) investigated the cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor celecoxib (200 mg twice daily) and the non-selective NSAID naproxen (220 mg twice daily) for preventing dementia in cognitively healthy older adults with a family history of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Median follow-up was 734 days. Combining both NSAID treatment arms, there was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of AD between participants allocated NSAIDs and those allocated placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.89 to 4.10; moderate-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference in rates of myocardial infarction (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.40), stroke (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.37) or mortality (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.43) between treatment groups (all moderate-certainty evidence).\nOne trial (88 participants) assessed the effectiveness of celecoxib (200 mg or 400 mg daily) in delaying cognitive decline in participants aged 40 to 81 years with mild age-related memory loss but normal memory performance scores. Mean duration of follow-up was 17.6 months in the celecoxib group and 18.1 months in the placebo group. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in test scores in any of six cognitive domains. Participants allocated celecoxib experienced more gastrointestinal adverse events than those allocated placebo (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.75; low-certainty evidence).\nOne trial (1457 participants) assessed the effectiveness of the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib (25 mg once daily) in delaying or preventing a diagnosis of AD in participants with MCI. Median duration of study participation was 115 weeks in the rofecoxib group and 130 weeks in the placebo group. There was a higher incidence of AD in the rofecoxib than the placebo group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.72; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.66; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.05; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants allocated rofecoxib had more upper gastrointestinal adverse events (RR 3.53, 95% CI 1.17 to 10.68; moderate-certainty evidence). Reported annual mean difference scores showed no evidence of a difference between groups in activities of daily living (year 1: no data available; year 2: 0.0, 95% CI –0.1 to 0.2; year 3: 0.1, 95% CI –0.1 to 0.3; year 4: 0.1, 95% CI –0.1 to 0.4; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence to support the use of low-dose aspirin or other NSAIDs of any class (celecoxib, rofecoxib or naproxen) for the prevention of dementia, but there was evidence of harm. Although there were limitations in the available evidence, it seems unlikely that there is any need for further trials of low-dose aspirin for dementia prevention. If future studies of NSAIDs for dementia prevention are planned, they will need to be cognisant of the safety concerns arising from the existing studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review found no evidence to support the use of either aspirin or other NSAIDs for the prevention of dementia and, in fact, there was some suggestion that they may cause harm. The studies had limitations, but, given the concerns over safety, further studies of low-dose aspirin for dementia prevention seem unlikely. If future studies of NSAIDs for dementia prevention are planned, then these will need to be mindful of the safety concerns arising from the studies included in this review and from other studies of the same medicines." } ]
query-laysum	24081	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAge-related cataract is the opacification of the lens, which occurs as a result of denaturation of lens proteins. Age-related cataract remains the leading cause of blindness globally, except in the most developed countries. A key question is what is the best way of removing the lens, especially in lower income settings.\nObjectives\nTo compare two different techniques of lens removal in cataract surgery: manual small incision surgery (MSICS) and extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to September 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to September 2014), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), (January 1990 to September 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), 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 23 September 2014.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. Participants in the trials were people with age-related cataract. We included trials where MSICS with a posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implant was compared to ECCE with a posterior chamber IOL implant.\nData collection and analysis\nData were collected independently by two authors. We aimed to collect data on presenting visual acuity 6/12 or better and best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/60 at three months and one year after surgery. Other outcomes included intraoperative complications, long-term complications (one year or more after surgery), quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. There were not enough data available from the included trials to perform a meta-analysis.\nMain results\nThree trials randomly allocating people with age-related cataract to MSICS or ECCE were included in this review (n = 953 participants). Two trials were conducted in India and one in Nepal. Trial methods, such as random allocation and allocation concealment, were not clearly described; in only one trial was an effort made to mask outcome assessors. The three studies reported follow-up six to eight weeks after surgery. In two studies, more participants in the MSICS groups achieved unaided visual acuity of 6/12 or 6/18 or better compared to the ECCE group, but overall not more than 50% of people achieved good functional vision in the two studies. 10/806 (1.2%) of people enrolled in two trials had a poor outcome after surgery (best-corrected vision less than 6/60) with no evidence of difference in risk between the two techniques (risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 5.55). Surgically induced astigmatism was more common with the ECCE procedure than MSICS in the two trials that reported this outcome. In one study there were more intra- and postoperative complications in the MSICS group. One study reported that the costs of the two procedures were similar.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are no other studies from other countries other than India and Nepal and there are insufficient data on cost-effectiveness of each procedure. Better evidence is needed before any change may be implemented. Future studies need to have longer-term follow-up and be conducted to minimize biases revealed in this review with a larger sample size to allow examination of adverse events.\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. There were only three studies and we could not combine the data because of differences in reporting and inconsistency between trials which meant that some of the results were imprecise." } ]
query-laysum	24082	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAgeing has a degenerative effect on the skin, leaving it more vulnerable to damage. Hygiene and emollient interventions may help maintain skin integrity in older people in hospital and residential care settings; however, at present, most care is based on \"tried and tested\" practice, rather than on evidence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of hygiene and emollient interventions for maintaining skin integrity in older people in hospital and residential care settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, up to January 2019. We also searched five trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing hygiene and emollient interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or standard practices for older people aged ≥ 60 years in hospital or residential care settings.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were frequency of skin damage, for example, complete loss of integrity (tears or ulceration) or partial loss of integrity (fissuring), and side effects. Secondary outcomes included transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration (SCH), erythema, and clinical scores of dryness or itch. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included six trials involving 1598 residential care home residents; no included trial had a hospital setting. Most participants had a mean age of 80+ years; when specified, more women were recruited than men. Two studies included only people with diagnosed dry skin. Studies were conducted in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America. A range of hygiene and emollient interventions were assessed: a moisturising soap bar; combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion; regular application of a commercially available moisturiser; use of two different standardised skin care regimens comprising a body wash and leave-on body lotion; bed bath with “wash gloves” containing numerous ingredients; and application of a hot towel after usual care bed bath.\nIn five studies, treatment duration ranged from five days to six months; only one study had post-treatment follow-up (one to eight days from end of treatment). Outcomes in the hot towel study were measured 15 minutes after the skin was wiped with a dry towel.\nThree studies each had high risk of attrition, detection, and performance bias.\nOnly one trial (n = 984) assessed frequency of skin damage via average monthly incidence of skin tears during six months of treatment. The emollient group (usual care plus twice-daily application of moisturiser) had 5.76 tears per month per 1000 occupied bed-days compared with 10.57 tears in the usual care only group (ad hoc or no standardised skin-moisturising regimen) (P = 0.004), but this is based on very low-quality evidence, so we are uncertain of this result.\nOnly one trial (n = 133) reported measuring side effects. At 56 ± 4 days from baseline, there were three undesirable effects (itch (mild), redness (mild/moderate), and irritation (severe)) in intervention group 1 (regimen consisting of a moisturising body wash and a moisturising leave-on lotion) and one event (mild skin dryness) in intervention group 2 (regimen consisting of body wash and a water-in-oil emulsion containing emollients and 4% urea). In both groups, the body wash was used daily and the emollient twice daily for eight weeks. There were zero adverse events in the usual care group. This result is based on very low-quality evidence. This same study also measured TEWL at 56 ± 4 days in the mid-volar forearm (n = 106) and the lower leg (n = 105). Compared to usual care, there may be no difference in TEWL between intervention groups, but evidence quality is low.\nOne study, which compared application of a hot towel for 10 seconds after a usual care bed bath versus usual care bed bath only, also measured TEWL at 15 minutes after the skin was wiped with a dry towel for one second. The mean TEWL was 8.6 g/m²/h (standard deviation (SD) 3.2) in the hot towel group compared with 8.9 g/m²/h (SD 4.1) in the usual care group (low-quality evidence; n = 42), showing there may be little or no difference between groups. A lower score is more favourable.\nThree studies (266 participants) measured SCH, but all evidence is of very low quality; we did not combine these studies due to differences in treatments (different skin care regimens for eight weeks; wash gloves for 12 weeks; and single application of hot towel to the skin) and differences in outcome reporting. All three studies showed no clear difference in SCH at follow-up (ranging from 15 minutes after the intervention to 12 weeks from baseline), when compared with usual care. A clinical score of dryness was measured by three studies (including 245 participants); pooling was not appropriate. The treatment groups (different skin care regimens for eight weeks; a moisturising soap bar used for five days; and combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion for 12 days) may reduce dryness compared to standard care or no intervention (results measured at 5, 8, and 56 ± 4 days after treatment was initiated). However, the quality of evidence for this outcome is low.\nOutcomes of erythema and clinical score of itch were not assessed in any included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence about the effects of hygiene and emollients in maintaining skin integrity in older people in residential and hospital settings is inadequate. We cannot draw conclusions regarding frequency of skin damage or side effects due to very low-quality evidence.\nLow-quality evidence suggests that in residential care settings for older people, certain types of hygiene and emollient interventions (two different standardised skin care regimens; moisturising soap bar; combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion) may be more effective in terms of clinical score of dryness when compared with no intervention or standard care.\nStudies were small and generally lacked methodological rigour, and information on effect sizes and precision was absent. More clinical trials are needed to guide practice; future studies should use a standard approach to measuring treatment effects and should include patient-reported outcomes, such as comfort and acceptability.\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": "Our main outcomes were skin damage and treatment side effects. Only one study reported frequency of skin damage (skin tears), finding fewer tears per month (5.76 per 1000 occupied bed-days) with usual care plus twice-daily application of a commercially available, pH-neutral moisturising lotion (for six months) compared with usual care (i.e. no standardised skin-moisturising routine) (10.57 tears). However, this is based on very low-quality evidence, so we are uncertain about this result.\nOnly one study measured side effects of treatments, comparing care as usual (i.e. usual personal hygiene and care products) against the use of two different types of moisturising body wash plus body lotion (application was twice daily for eight weeks) in two groups of participants. Four side effects were reported in the treatment group (assessment occurred approximately 56 days after treatment started): itch (mild), redness (mild/moderate), irritation (severe), and mild skin dryness. No side effects were reported in the care-as-usual group. However, this finding is based on very low-quality evidence, meaning that we are uncertain about this result.\nThe same study assessed water loss from the skin of the forearm and lower leg and found there may be no difference between usual care and treatment. A different study compared a hot towel applied for 10 seconds after a usual care bed bath versus usual care bed bath only, finding there may be little or no difference in water loss between groups. Both studies are based on low-quality evidence.\nThree studies, which assessed different skin care regimens for eight weeks; use of wash gloves for 12 weeks; and single application of a hot towel, showed no clear difference in hydration of the stratum corneum (the outermost layer of the skin) when compared with usual care. However, evidence quality was very low, so we are uncertain of this result.\nThree studies measured skin dryness and there may be improvement with the following treatments compared to standard care or no intervention: different skin care regimens for eight weeks; a moisturising soap bar used for five days; and combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion for 12 days (all low-quality evidence).\nNo included studies assessed skin redness and clinical score of itch." } ]
query-laysum	24083	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgery used to be the treatment of choice in cases of blunt hepatic injury, but this approach gradually changed over the last two decades as increasing non-operative management (NOM) of splenic injury led to its use for hepatic injury. The improvement in critical care monitoring and computed tomographic scanning, as well as the more frequent use of interventional radiology techniques, has helped to bring about this change to non-operative management. Liver trauma ranges from a small capsular tear, without parenchymal laceration, to massive parenchymal injury with major hepatic vein/retrohepatic vena cava lesions. In 1994, the Organ Injury Scaling Committee of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) revised the Hepatic Injury Scale to have a range from grade I to VI. Minor injuries (grade I or II) are the most frequent liver injuries (80% to 90% of all cases); severe injuries are grade III-V lesions; grade VI lesions are frequently incompatible with survival. In the medical literature, the majority of patients who have undergone NOM have low-grade liver injuries. The safety of NOM in high-grade liver lesions, AAST grade IV and V, remains a subject of debate as a high incidence of liver and collateral extra-abdominal complications are still described.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-operative management compared to operative management in high-grade (grade III-V) blunt hepatic injury.\nSearch methods\nThe search for studies was run on 14 April 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (Ovid), PubMed, ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and we screened reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised trials that compare non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently applied the selection criteria to relevant study reports. We used standard methodological procedures as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe were unable to find any randomised controlled trials of non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn order to further explore the preliminary findings provided by animal models and observational clinical studies that suggests there may be a beneficial effect of non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury, large, high quality randomised trials are needed.\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": "Trials are needed so that doctors and patients have research to use when making treatment decisions." } ]
query-laysum	24085	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDental implants are used for replacing missing teeth. Placing dental implants is limited by the presence of adequate bone volume permitting their anchorage. Several bone augmentation procedures have been developed to solve this problem. Zygomatic implants are long screw-shaped implants developed as a partial or complete alternative to bone augmentation procedures for the severely atrophic maxilla. One to three zygomatic implants can be inserted through the posterior alveolar crest passing through the maxillary sinus, or externally to it, to engage the body of the zygomatic bone. A couple of conventional dental implants may also be needed in the frontal region of the maxilla to stabilise the prosthesis. The potential main advantages of zygomatic implants could be that bone grafting may not be needed and a fixed prosthesis could be fitted sooner. Another specific indication for zygomatic implants could be maxillary reconstruction after maxillectomy in cancer patients.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of zygomatic implants with and without bone augmenting procedures in comparison with conventional dental implants in augmented bone for the rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses of severely resorbed maxillae.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 June 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 June 2013). Personal contacts and all known zygomatic implant manufacturers were contacted to identify unpublished trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with severely resorbed maxillae, who could not be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants, treated with zygomatic implants with and without bone grafts versus participants treated with bone augmentation procedures and conventional dental implants, with a follow-up of at least one year in function.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors would have extracted data from eligible studies and assessed their risk of bias independently and in duplicate. The results of included studies were to be combined in meta-analyses using random-effects models where there were more than four studies, and fixed-effect models where there were less than four studies. We would have expressed the estimate of the intervention effect as mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any RCTs which were eligible for inclusion in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a need for RCTs in this area to assess whether zygomatic implants offer some advantages over alternative bone augmentation techniques for treating atrophic maxillae.\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 are no comparative trials evaluating the effectiveness of long implants passing through the sinus and into the cheekbone as an alternative to bone augmentation procedures." } ]
query-laysum	24086	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Lifestyle changes are at the forefront of preventing the disease. This includes advice such as increasing physical activity and having a healthy balanced diet to reduce risk factors. Intermittent fasting (IF) is a popular dietary plan involving restricting caloric intake to certain days in the week such as alternate day fasting and periodic fasting, and restricting intake to a number of hours in a given day, otherwise known as time-restricted feeding. IF is being researched for its benefits and many randomised controlled trials have looked at its benefits in preventing CVD.\nObjectives\nTo determine the role of IF in preventing and reducing the risk of CVD in people with or without prior documented CVD.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted our search on 12 December 2019; we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched three trials registers and searched the reference lists of included papers. Systematic reviews were also viewed for additional studies. There was no language restriction applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing IF to ad libitum feeding (eating at any time with no specific caloric restriction) or continuous energy restriction (CER). Participants had to be over the age of 18 and included those with and without cardiometabolic risk factors. Intermittent fasting was categorised into alternate-day fasting, modified alternate-day fasting, periodic fasting and time-restricted feeding.\nData collection and analysis\nFive review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extraction. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Secondary outcomes include the absolute change in body weight, and glucose. Furthermore, side effects such as headaches and changes to the quality of life were also noted. For continuous data, pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) were calculated. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nOur search yielded 39,165 records after the removal of duplicates. From this, 26 studies met our criteria, and 18 were included in the pooled analysis. The 18 studies included 1125 participants and observed outcomes ranging from four weeks to six months. Of quantitatively analysed data, seven studies compared IF with ab libitum feeding, eight studies compared IF with CER, and three studies compared IF with both ad libitum feeding and CER. Outcomes were reported at short term (≤ 3 months) and medium term (> 3 months to 12 months) follow-up.\nNone of the included studies reported on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or heart failure.\nBody weight was reduced with IF compared to ad libitum feeding in the short term (MD -2.88 kg, 95% CI -3.96 to -1.80; 224 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IF when compared to CER in the short term (MD -0.88 kg, 95% CI -1.76 to 0.00; 719 participants; 10 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and there may be no effect in the medium term (MD -0.56 kg, 95% CI -1.68 to 0.56; 279 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain about the effect of IF on glucose when compared to ad libitum feeding in the short term (MD -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.19; 95 participants; 3 studies; very-low-certainty of evidence) and when compared to CER in the short term: MD -0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.12; 582 participants; 9 studies; very low-certainty; medium term: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.11; 279 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nThe changes in body weight and glucose were not deemed to be clinically significant.\nFour studies reported data on side effects, with some participants complaining of mild headaches. One study reported on the quality of life using the RAND SF-36 score. There was a modest increase in the physical component summary score.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the effects of intermittent fasting on clinical events such as mortality, myocardial infarction and heart failure due to lack of data for these outcomes. The individual meta-analyses show that intermittent fasting may be effective in reducing weight when compared to ad libitum feeding and may be as effective as continuous energy restriction. Despite this, these changes appear to be clinically insignificant at short-term follow-up. The quality of the available evidence is low to very low which means that many areas of uncertainty remain. Further research is needed to understand which patient groups would and would not benefit from intermittent fasting (e.g. patients with diabetes or eating disorders) as well as the effect on longer-term outcomes such as all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that tested intermittent fasting against 'usual eating' (someone eats whatever foods they want whenever they like), or against 'energy restriction' diets (someone limits the number of calories they eat).\nWe wanted to find out whether intermittent fasting affected mortality, cardiovascular mortality, risk of stroke, heart attack or heart failure. We also looked at whether intermittent fasting affected body weight and blood sugar levels." } ]
query-laysum	24087	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEpidural analgesia is often used for pain relief during labour and childbirth, and involves administration of local anaesthetics (LA) into the epidural space resulting in sensory blockade of the abdomen, pelvis, and perineum. Epidural opioids are often co-administered to improve analgesia. Administration of epidural medications can be accomplished by basal infusion (BI) or automated mandatory bolus (AMB). With BI, medications are administered continuously, while AMB involves injecting medications at set time intervals. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) on top of AMB or BI enables patients to initiate additional boluses of epidural medications.\nThe superior method of delivering epidural medications would result in lower incidence of pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention (breakthrough pain). Also, it should be associated with lower incidence of epidural-related adverse effects including caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery (use of forceps or vacuum devices), prolonged duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, clear evidence of the superiority of one technique over the other is lacking. Also, differences in the initiation of epidural analgesia such as combined spinal-epidural (CSE) (medications given into the intrathecal space in addition to the epidural space) compared to epidural only, and medications used (types and doses of LA or opioids) may not have been accounted for in previous reviews.\nOur prior systematic review suggested that AMB reduces the incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI with no significant difference in the incidence of caesarean delivery or instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, several studies comparing AMB and BI have been performed since then, and inclusion of their data may improve the precision of our effect estimates.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of AMB versus BI for maintaining labour epidural analgesia in women at term.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, Wiley Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, (National Library of Medicine), Embase(Elseiver), Web of Science (Clarivate), the WHO-ICTRP (World Health Organization) and ClinicalTrials.gov (National Library of Medicine) on 31 December 2022. Additionally, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews for eligible citations, and we contacted authors of included studies to identify unpublished research and ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled studies that compared bolus dosing AMB with continuous BI during epidural analgesia. We excluded studies of women in preterm labour, with multiple pregnancies, with fetal malposition, intrathecal catheters, those that did not use automated delivery of medications, and those where AMB and BI were combined.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis described by Cochrane. Primary outcomes included: incidence of breakthrough pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention; incidence of caesarean delivery; and incidence of instrumental delivery. Secondly, we assessed the duration of labour; hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents, maternal satisfaction after fetal delivery, and neonatal Apgar scores.\nThe following subgroup analyses were chosen a priori: epidural alone versus CSE technique; regimens that used PCEA versus those that did not; and nulliparous versus combination of nulli- and multi-parous women.\nWe used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence associated with our outcome measures.\nMain results\nWe included 18 studies of 4590 women, of which 13 enrolled healthy nulliparous women and five included healthy nulli- and multiparous women. All studies excluded women with preterm or complicated pregnancies. Techniques used to initiate epidural analgesia differed between the studies: seven used combined spinal epidural, 10 used epidural, and one used dural puncture epidural (DPE). There was also variation in analgesics used. Eight studies utilised ropivacaine with fentanyl, three used ropivacaine with sufentanil, two utilised levobupivacaine with sufentanil, one used levobupivacaine with fentanyl, and four utilised bupivacaine with fentanyl. Most of the studies were assessed to have low risk of randomisation, blinding, attrition, and reporting biases, except for allocation concealment where eight studies were assessed to have uncertain risk and three with high risk.\nOur results showed that AMB was associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.91; I2 = 57%) (16 studies, 1528 participants), and lower hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents (mean difference (MD) -0.84 mg/h; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.38, I2 = 87%) (16 studies, 1642 participants), both with moderate certainty. AMB was associated with an estimated reduction in breakthrough pain incidence of 29.1% (incidence 202 per 1000, 95% CI 157 to 259), and was therefore considered clinically significant.\nThe incidence of caesarean delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; I2 = 0%) (16 studies, 1735 participants) and instrumental delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; I2 = 0%) (17 studies, 4550 participants) were not significantly, both with moderate certainty. There was no significant difference in duration of labour analgesia (MD -8.81 min; 95% CI -19.38 to 1.77; I2 = 50%) (17 studies, 4544 participants) with moderate certainty. Due to differences in the methods and timing of outcome measurements, we did not pool data for maternal satisfaction and Apgar scores. Results reported narratively suggest AMB may be associated with increased maternal satisfaction (eight studies reported increased satisfaction and six reported no difference), and all studies showed no difference in Apgar scores.\nWIth the exception of epidural alone versus CSE which found significant subgroup differences in LA consumption between AMB and BI, no significant differences were detected in the remaining subgroup analyses.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, AMB is associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain, reduced LA consumption, and may improve maternal satisfaction. There were no significant differences between AMB and BI in the incidence of caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and Apgar scores. Larger studies assessing the incidence of caesarean and instrumental delivery are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the methods of maintaining epidural pain relief during labour?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Epidurals are often used to provide pain relief during labour, and involve administration of local anaesthetic medications into the epidural space around the spinal column. Broadly, medications can be delivered via two techniques: basal infusion (BI) and automated mandatory boluses (AMB). With BI, medications are administered without interruption over an extended period of time, whereas AMB involves administration of medications at set time intervals with each dose delivered within a short period of time.\nThe superior method of delivering epidural medications would result in effective pain relief and low incidence of experiencing pain that requires anaesthesiologist intervention (also termed breakthrough pain). Also, it would be associated with lower incidence of epidural-related adverse effects including caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery (use of forceps or vacuum device to assist delivery), prolonged duration of labour pain relief, and increased local anaesthetic consumption." } ]
query-laysum	24088	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss.\nAntibiotics and antiseptics kill or inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be applied topically or administered systemically via the oral or injection route. Antiseptics are always directly applied to the ear (topically).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of antibiotics versus antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 4, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); 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 1 April 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks.\nThe intervention was any single, or combination of, antibiotic agent, whether applied topically (without steroids) or systemically. The comparison was any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent, applied as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure.\nTwo comparisons were topical antiseptics compared to: a) topical antibiotics or b) systemic antibiotics. Within each comparison we separated where both groups of patients had received topical antibiotic a) alone or with aural toilet and b) on top of background treatment (such as systemic antibiotics).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nOur primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.\nMain results\nWe identified seven studies (935 participants) across four comparisons with antibiotics compared against acetic acid, aluminium acetate, boric acid and povidone-iodine.\nNone of the included studies reported the outcomes of quality of life or serious complications.\nA. Topical antiseptic (acetic acid) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones or aminoglycosides)\nIt is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge with acetic acid compared with aminoglycosides at one to two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.08; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. It was very uncertain if there was more ear pain, discomfort or local irritation with acetic acid or topical antibiotics due to the low numbers of participants reporting events (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.34; 2 RCTs; 189 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No differences between groups were reported narratively for hearing (quinolones) or suspected ototoxicity (aminoglycosides) (very low-certainty evidence).\nB. Topical antiseptic (aluminium acetate) versus topical antibiotics\nNo results for the one study comparing topical antibiotics with aluminium acetate could be used in the review.\nC. Topical antiseptic (boric acid) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones)\nOne study reported more participants with resolution of ear discharge when using topical antibiotics (quinolones) compared with boric acid ear drops at between one to two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48 to 2.35; 1 study; 411 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that one additional person will have resolution of ear discharge for every four people receiving topical antibiotics (compared with boric acid) at two weeks. No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. There was a bigger improvement in hearing in the topical antibiotic group compared to the topical antiseptic group (mean difference (MD) 2.79 decibels (dB), 95% CI 0.48 to 5.10; 1 study; 390 participants; low-certainty evidence) but this difference may not be clinically significant.\nThere may be more ear pain, discomfort or irritation with boric acid compared with quinolones (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 2 studies; 510 participants; low-certainty evidence). Suspected ototoxicity was not reported.\nD. Topical antiseptic (povidone-iodine) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones)\nIt is uncertain if there is a difference between quinolones and povidone-iodine with respect to resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26; 1 RCT, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported qualitatively that there were no differences between the groups for hearing and no patients developed ototoxic effects (very low-certainty evidence). No results for resolution of ear discharge beyond four weeks, or ear pain, discomfort or irritation, were reported.\nE. Topical antiseptic (acetic acid) + aural toileting versus topical + systemic antibiotics (quinolones)\nOne study reported that participants receiving topical and oral antibiotics had less resolution of ear discharge compared with acetic acid ear drops and aural toileting (suction clearance every two days) at one month (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; 100 participants). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge at between one to two weeks, ear pain, discomfort or irritation, hearing or suspected ototoxicity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTreatment of CSOM with topical antibiotics (quinolones) probably results in an increase in resolution of ear discharge compared with boric acid at up to two weeks. There was limited evidence for the efficacy of other topical antibiotics or topical antiseptics and so we are unable to draw conclusions. Adverse events were not well reported.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There is not much evidence comparing topical antiseptics with topical antibiotics. The evidence is very uncertain as to whether antibiotics or topical antiseptics are more effective for reducing ear discharge, except that topical antibiotics are likely to be more effective than boric acid." } ]
query-laysum	24089	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGlobally, cardiovascular diseases (CVD, that is, coronary heart (CHD) and circulatory diseases combined) contribute to 31% of all deaths, more than any other cause. In line with guidance in the UK and globally, cardiac rehabilitation programmes are widely offered to people with heart disease, and include psychosocial, educational, health behaviour change, and risk management components. Social support and social network interventions have potential to improve outcomes of these programmes, but whether and how these interventions work is poorly understood.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of social network and social support interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease. The comparator was usual care with no element of social support (i.e. secondary prevention alone or with cardiac rehabilitation).\nSearch methods\nWe undertook a systematic search of the following databases on 9 August 2022: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included primary studies, and we contacted experts to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of social network or social support interventions for people with heart disease. We included studies regardless of their duration of follow-up, and included those reported as full text, published as abstract only, and unpublished data.\nData collection and analysis\nUsing Covidence, two review authors independently screened all identified titles. We retrieved full-text study reports and publications marked ‘included’, and two review authors independently screened these, and conducted data extraction. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, all-cause hospital admission, cardiovascular-related hospital admission, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured at > 12 months follow-up.\nMain results\nWe included 54 RCTs (126 publications) reporting data for a total of 11,445 people with heart disease. The median follow-up was seven months and median sample size was 96 participants. Of included study participants, 6414 (56%) were male, and the mean age ranged from 48.6 to 76.3 years. Studies included heart failure (41%), mixed cardiac disease (31%), post-myocardial infarction (13%), post-revascularisation (7%), CHD (7%), and cardiac X syndrome (1%) patients. The median intervention duration was 12 weeks. We identified notable diversity in social network and social support interventions, across what was delivered, how, and by whom.\nWe assessed risk of bias (RoB) in primary outcomes at > 12 months follow-up as either 'low' (2/15 studies), 'some concerns' (11/15), or 'high' (2/15). 'Some concerns' or 'high' RoB resulted from insufficient detail on blinding of outcome assessors, data missingness, and absence of pre-agreed statistical analysis plans. In particular, HRQoL outcomes were at high RoB. Using the GRADE method, we assessed the certainty of evidence as low or very low across outcomes.\nSocial network or social support interventions had no clear effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.13, I2 = 40%) or cardiovascular-related mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.10, I2 = 0%) at > 12 months follow-up. The evidence suggests that social network or social support interventions for heart disease may result in little to no difference in all-cause hospital admission (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), or cardiovascular-related hospital admission (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10, I2 = 16%), with a low level of certainty. The evidence was very uncertain regarding the impact of social network interventions on HRQoL at > 12 months follow-up (SF-36 physical component score: mean difference (MD) 31.53, 95% CI -28.65 to 91.71, I2 = 100%, 2 trials/comparisons, 166 participants; mental component score MD 30.62, 95% CI -33.88 to 95.13, I2 = 100%, 2 trials/comparisons, 166 participants).\nRegarding secondary outcomes, there may be a decrease in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure with social network or social support interventions. There was no evidence of impact found on psychological well-being, smoking, cholesterol, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, return to work/education, social isolation or connectedness, patient satisfaction, or adverse events.\nResults of meta-regression did not suggest that the intervention effect was related to risk of bias, intervention type, duration, setting, and delivery mode, population type, study location, participant age, or percentage of male participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no strong evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions, although modest effects were identified in relation to blood pressure. While the data presented in this review are indicative of potential for positive effects, the review also highlights the lack of sufficient evidence to conclusively support such interventions for people with heart disease. Further high-quality, well-reported RCTs are required to fully explore the potential of social support interventions in this context. Future reporting of social network and social support interventions for people with heart disease needs to be significantly clearer, and more effectively theorised, in order to ascertain causal pathways and effect on outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out whether programmes designed to help people with heart disease, which include a clearly described component of social support, might improve:\n- deaths (from heart disease, or any other cause);\n- hospital admissions;\n- health-related quality of life.\nWe also wanted to find out if they improved any other related factors, such as mental health and well-being, and social isolation." } ]
query-laysum	24090	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTransfer of more than one embryo during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) increases multiple pregnancy rates resulting in an increased risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. Elective single embryo transfer offers a means of minimising this risk, but this potential gain needs to be balanced against the possibility of jeopardising the overall live birth rate (LBR).\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different policies for the number of embryos transferred in infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to March 2020. We handsearched reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. We also communicated with experts in the field regarding any additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different policies for the number of embryos transferred following IVF or ICSI in infertile women. Studies of fresh or frozen and thawed transfer of one to four embryos at cleavage or blastocyst stage were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. The primary outcomes were LBR and multiple pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates. We analysed data using risk ratios (RR), Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) and a fixed effect model.\nMain results\nWe included 17 RCTs in the review (2505 women). The main limitation was inadequate reporting of study methods and moderate to high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. A majority of the studies had low numbers of participants.\nNone of the trials compared repeated single embryo transfer (SET) with multiple embryo transfer. Reported results of multiple embryo transfer below refer to double embryo transfer.\nRepeated single embryo transfer versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle\nRepeated SET was compared with double embryo transfer (DET) in four studies of cleavage-stage transfer. In these studies the SET group received either two cycles of fresh SET (one study) or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET (three studies). The cumulative live birth rate after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET (RR 0.95, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.82 to 1.10; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 42% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the repeated SET would yield pregnancy rates between 34% and 46%. The multiple pregnancy rate associated with repeated SET is probably reduced compared to a single cycle of DET (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 13% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following repeated SET would be between 0% and 3%. The clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; I² = 47%; 3 studies, 943 participants; low-quality evidence) after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET. There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups.\nSingle versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle\nA single cycle of SET was compared with a single cycle of DET in 13 studies, 11 comparing cleavage-stage transfers and three comparing blastocyst-stage transfers.One study reported both cleavage and blastocyst stage transfers.\nLow-quality evidence suggests that the live birth rate per woman may be reduced in women who have SET in comparison with those who have DET (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; I² = 0%; 12 studies, 1904 participants; low-quality evidence). Thus, for a woman with a 46% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following a single cycle of SET would be between 27% and 35%. The multiple pregnancy rate per woman is probably lower in those who have SET than those who have DET (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.22; I² = 0%; 13 studies, 1952 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following a single cycle of SET would be between 2% and 4%. Low-quality evidence suggests that the clinical pregnancy rate may be lower in women who have SET than in those who have DET (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1860 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough DET achieves higher live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per fresh cycle, the evidence suggests that the difference in effectiveness may be substantially offset when elective SET is followed by a further transfer of a single embryo in fresh or frozen cycle, while simultaneously reducing multiple pregnancies, at least among women with a good prognosis.\nThe quality of evidence was low to moderate primarily due to inadequate reporting of study methods and absence of masking those delivering, as well as receiving the interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "How many embryos should be transferred in couples undergoing ART?" } ]
query-laysum	24091	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAdults in intensive care units (ICUs) often suffer from a lack of sleep or frequent sleep disruptions. Non-pharmacological interventions can improve the duration and quality of sleep and decrease the risk of sleep disturbance, delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the length of stay in the ICU. However, there is no clear evidence of the effectiveness and harms of different non-pharmacological interventions for sleep promotion in adults admitted to the ICU.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for sleep promotion in critically ill adults in the ICU.\nTo establish whether non-pharmacological interventions are safe and clinically effective in improving sleep quality and reducing length of ICU stay in critically ill adults.\nTo establish whether non-pharmacological interventions are cost effective.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (OVID, 1950 to June 2014), EMBASE (1966 to June 2014), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, 1982 to June 2014), Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1956 to June 2014), CAM on PubMed (1966 to June 2014), Alt HealthWatch (1997 to June 2014), PsycINFO (1967 to June 2014), the China Biological Medicine Database (CBM-disc, 1979 to June 2014), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI Database, 1999 to June 2014). We also searched the following repositories and registries to June 2014: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (ISRCTN Register) (www.controlled-trials.com), the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn), the Clinical Trials Registry-India (www.ctri.nic.in), the Grey Literature Report from the New York Academy of Medicine Library (www.greylit.org), OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform (www.who.int/trialsearch). We handsearched critical care journals and reference lists and contacted relevant experts to identify relevant unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for sleep promotion in critically ill adults (aged 18 years and older) during admission to critical care units or ICUs.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened the search results and assessed the risk of bias in selected trials. One author extracted the data and a second checked the data for accuracy and completeness. Where possible, we combined results in meta-analyses using mean differences and standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used post-test scores in this review.\nMain results\nWe included 30 trials, with a total of 1569 participants, in this review. We included trials of ventilator mode or type, earplugs or eye masks or both, massage, relaxation interventions, foot baths, music interventions, nursing interventions, valerian acupressure, aromatherapy, and sound masking. Outcomes included objective sleep outcomes, subjective sleep quality and quantity, risk of delirium, participant satisfaction, length of ICU stay, and adverse events. Clinical heterogeneity (e.g., participant population, outcomes measured) and research design limited quantitative synthesis, and only a small number of studies were available for most interventions. The quality of the evidence for an effect of non-pharmacological interventions on any of the outcomes examined was generally low or very low. Only three trials, all of earplugs or eye masks or both, provided data suitable for two separate meta-analyses. These meta-analyses, each of two studies, showed a lower incidence of delirium during ICU stay (risk ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.80, P value = 0.002, two studies, 177 participants) and a positive effect of earplugs or eye masks or both on total sleep time (mean difference 2.19 hours, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.96, P value = 0.02, two studies, 116 participants); we rated the quality of the evidence for both of these results as low.\nThere was also some low quality evidence that music (350 participants; four studies) may improve subjective sleep quality and quantity, but we could not pool the data. Similarly, there was some evidence that relaxation techniques, foot massage, acupressure, nursing or social intervention, and sound masking can provide small improvements in various subjective measures of sleep quality and quantity, but the quality of the evidence was low. The effects of non-pharmacological interventions on objective sleep outcomes were inconsistent across 16 studies (we rated the quality of the evidence as very low): the majority of studies relating to the use of earplugs and eye masks found no benefit; results from six trials of ventilator modes suggested that certain ventilator settings might offer benefits over others, although the results of the individual trials did not always agree with each other. Only one study measured length of stay in the ICU and found no significant effect of earplugs plus eye masks. No studies examined the effect of any non-pharmacological intervention on mortality, risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, or cost-effectiveness; the included studies did not clearly report adverse effects, although there was very low quality evidence that ventilator mode influenced the incidence of central apnoeas and patient-ventilator asynchronies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe quality of existing evidence relating to the use of non-pharmacological interventions for promoting sleep in adults in the ICU was low or very low. We found some evidence that the use of earplugs or eye masks or both may have beneficial effects on sleep and the incidence of delirium in this population, although the quality of the evidence was low. Further high-quality research is needed to strengthen the evidence base.\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 30 trials, with a total of 1569 participants, and the interventions included changes to ventilator type and settings, earplugs and eye masks, relaxation therapy, sleep-inducing music, massage, foot baths, aromatherapy, valerian acupressure, sound masking, and changing the visiting times of family members. We assessed the effects of these interventions on sleep outcomes (e.g., quality and amount of sleep), length of stay in the ICU, the occurrence of delirium, other adverse events, and death." } ]
query-laysum	24092	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGiant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common form of systemic vasculitis in people older than 50 years of age. It causes granulomatous inflammation of medium- to large-sized vessels. Tocilizumab is a recombinant monoclonal antibody directed against interleukin-6 receptors (IL-6R).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab, given alone or with corticosteroids, compared with therapy without tocilizumab for treatment of GCA.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 January 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared tocilizumab of any dosage regimen (alone or with corticosteroids) with therapy without tocilizumab that had a minimum follow-up of six months. Participants were at least 50 years of age, with biopsy-proven GCA or by large-vessel vasculitis by angiography, and met the American College of Rheumatology 1990 guidelines for GCA.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs in the review. The studies were conducted in the USA, Canada, and Europe and enrolled a total of 281 participants with GCA, of whom 74% were women. The mean age of participants was 70 years, with new-onset or relapsing GCA, and fulfilled the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria with no uncontrolled comorbidities. Both studies were funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, the manufacturer of tocilizumab.\nFindings\nOne RCT (30 participants) compared tocilizumab administered every four weeks versus placebo. Point estimates at 12 months and beyond favored tocilizumab over placebo in terms of sustained remission (risk ratio (RR) 4.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 14.88; moderate-certainty evidence). Point estimates suggest no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality at 12 months or more (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.94; moderate-certainty evidence). At 12 months, mean time to first relapse after induction of remission was 25 weeks in favor of participants receiving tocilizumab compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 25, 95% CI 11.4 to 38.6; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe second RCT (250 participants) randomized participants into two intervention and two comparator groups to receive tocilizumab weekly (100 participants), bi-weekly (49 participants), weekly placebo + 26-week taper (50 participants), or weekly placebo + 52-week taper (51 participants). At 12 months, point estimates from this study on proportion of participants with sustained remission favored participants who received tocilizumab weekly versus placebo + 52-week taper (RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.71 to 5.89; 151 participants); tocilizumab weekly versus placebo + 26-week taper (RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.97 to 8.12; 150 participants); tocilizumab every other week versus placebo + 52-week taper (RR 3.01, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.75; 100 participants); tocilizumab every other week versus placebo + 26-week taper (RR 3.79, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.91; 99 participants) (moderate-certainty evidence). Point estimates on proportion of participants who did not need escape therapy (defined by the study as the inability to keep to the protocol-defined prednisone taper) favored participants who received tocilizumab weekly versus placebo + 52-week taper (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.35; 151 participants); tocilizumab weekly versus placebo + 26-week taper (RR 2.96, 95% CI 1.83 to 4.78; 150 participants); tocilizumab every other week versus placebo + 52-week taper (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.14; 100 participants) but not tocilizumab every other week versus placebo + 26-week taper (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.54; 99 participants) (moderate-certainty evidence). This study did not report mean time to first relapse after induction of remission or all-cause mortality.\nAcross comparison groups, the same study found no evidence of a difference in vision changes and inconsistent evidence with regard to quality of life. Evidence on quality of life as assessed by the physical (MD 8.17, 95% CI 4.44 to 11.90) and mental (MD 5.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 11.16) component score of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) favored weekly tocilizumab versus placebo + 52-week taper but not bi-weekly tocillizumab versus placebo + 26-week taper (moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events\nOne RCT reported a lower percentage of participants who experienced serious adverse events when receiving tocilizumab every four weeks versus placebo. The second RCT reported no evidence of a difference among groups with regard to adverse events; however, fewer participants reported serious adverse events in the tocilizumab weekly and tocilizumab biweekly interventions compared with the placebo + 26-week taper and placebo + 52-week taper comparators. Investigators in both studies reported that infection was the most frequently reported adverse event.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review indicates that tocilizumab therapy may be beneficial in terms of proportion of participants with sustained remission, relapse-free survival, and the need for escape therapy. While the evidence was of moderate certainty, only two studies were included in the review, suggesting that further research is required to corroborate these findings. Future trials should address issues related to the required duration of therapy, patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and economic outcomes, as well as the clinical outcomes evaluated in this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is GCA treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "GCA is usually treated with anti-inflammation medicines called steroids. People typically need to take steroids for several years, which can cause adverse effects such as diabetes, osteoporosis (bone loss), hypertension (raised blood pressure), and infection.\nA possible alternative treatment is an injectable medicine called tocilizumab, which aims to stop the body’s defense system (immune system) from mistakenly attacking its healthy tissues and causing inflammation." } ]
query-laysum	24093	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nObesity is a global public health threat. Chromium picolinate (CrP) is advocated in the medical literature for the reduction of body weight, and preparations are sold as slimming aids in the USA and Europe, and on the Internet.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of CrP supplementation in overweight or obese people.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the China Journal Fulltext Database and the Chinese Scientific Journals Fulltext Database (all databases to December 2012), as well as other sources (including databases of ongoing trials, clinical trials registers and reference lists).\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials if they were randomised controlled trials (RCT) of CrP supplementation in people who were overweight or obese. We excluded studies including children, pregnant women or individuals with serious medical conditions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Screening for inclusion, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment were carried out by one author and checked by a second. We assessed the risk of bias by evaluating the domains selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting bias. We performed a meta-analysis of included trials using Review Manager 5.\nMain results\nWe evaluated nine RCTs involving a total of 622 participants. The RCTs were conducted in the community setting, with interventions mainly delivered by health professionals, and had a short- to medium-term follow up (up to 24 weeks). Three RCTs compared CrP plus resistance or weight training with placebo plus resistance or weight training, the other RCTs compared CrP alone versus placebo. We focused this review on investigating which dose of CrP would prove most effective versus placebo and therefore assessed the results according to CrP dose. However, in order to find out if CrP works in general, we also analysed the effect of all pooled CrP doses versus placebo on body weight only.\nAcross all CrP doses investigated (200 µg, 400 µg, 500 µg, 1000 µg) we noted an effect on body weight in favour of CrP of debatable clinical relevance after 12 to 16 weeks of treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.1 kg (95% CI -1.7 to -0.4); P = 0.001; 392 participants; 6 trials; low-quality evidence (GRADE)). No firm evidence and no dose gradient could be established when comparing different doses of CrP with placebo for various weight loss measures (body weight, body mass index, percentage body fat composition, change in waist circumference).\nOnly three studies provided information on adverse events (low-quality evidence (GRADE)). There were two serious adverse events and study dropouts in participants taking 1000 µg CrP, and one serious adverse event in an individual taking 400 µg CrP. Two participants receiving placebo discontinued due to adverse events; one event was reported as serious. No study reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no current, reliable evidence to inform firm decisions about the efficacy and safety of CrP supplements in overweight or obese adults.\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 nine randomised controlled trials which compared the efficacy and safety of 8 to 24 weeks of chromium supplementation and placebo in overweight or obese adults (i.e. with a body mass index between 25 and 29.9 kg/m2 defining being overweight and a body mass index of 30kg/m2 or more defining obesity). A total of 622 participants took part in the studies, 346 participants received chromium picolinate and 276 received placebo. The evidence is current to December 2012." } ]
query-laysum	24094	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGrade I or low-grade chondrosarcoma (LGCS) is a primary bone tumour with low malignant potential. Historically, it was treated by wide resection, since accurate pre-operative exclusion of more aggressive cancers can be challenging and under-treatment of a more aggressive cancer could negatively influence oncological outcomes. Intralesional surgery for LGCS has been advocated more often in the literature over the past few years. The potential advantages of less aggressive treatment are better functional outcome and lower complication rates although these need to be weighed against the potential for compromising survival outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of intralesional treatment by curettage compared to wide resection for central low-grade chondrosarcoma (LGCS) of the long bones.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE and Embase up to April 2018. We extended the search to include trials registries, reference lists of relevant articles and review articles. We also searched 'related articles' of included studies suggested by PubMed.\nSelection criteria\nIn the absence of prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we included retrospective comparative studies and case series that evaluated outcome of treatment of central LGCS of the long bones. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival after a minimal follow-up of 24 months. Secondary outcomes were upgrading of tumour; functional outcome, as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score; and occurrence of complications.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recognised by Cochrane. We conducted a systematic literature search using several databases and contacted corresponding authors, appraised the evidence using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool and GRADE, and performed a meta-analysis. If data extraction was not possible, we included studies in a narrative summary.\nMain results\nWe included 18 studies, although we were only able to extract participant data from 14 studies that included a total of 511 participants; 419 participants were managed by intralesional treatment and 92 underwent a wide resection. We were not able to extract participant data from four studies, including 270 participants, and so we included them as a narrative summary only. The evidence was at high risk of performance, detection and reporting bias.\nMeta-analysis of data from 238 participants across seven studies demonstrated little or no difference in recurrence-free survival after intralesional treatment versus wide resection for central LGCS in the long bones (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.04; very low-certainty evidence). MSTS scores were probably better after intralesional surgery (mean score 93%) versus resection (mean score 78%) with a mean difference of 12.69 (95% CI 2.82 to 22.55; P value < 0.001; 3 studies; 72 participants; low-certainty evidence). Major complications across six studies (203 participants) were lower in cases treated by intralesional treatment (5/125 cases) compared to those treated by wide resection (18/78 cases), with RR 0.23 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence). In four people (0.5% of total participants) a high-grade (grade 2 or dedifferentiated) tumour was found after a local recurrence. Two participants were treated with second surgery with no evidence of disease at their final follow-up and two participants (0.26% of total participants) died due to disease. Kaplan-Meier analysis of data from 115 individual participants across four studies demonstrated 96% recurrence-free survival after a maximum follow-up of 300 months after resection versus 94% recurrence-free survival after a maximum follow-up of 251 months after intralesional treatment (P value = 0.58; very low-certainty evidence). Local recurrence or metastases were not reported after 41 months in either treatment group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOnly evidence of low- and very low-certainty was available for this review according to the GRADE system. Included studies were all retrospective in nature and at high risk of selection and attrition bias. Therefore, we could not determine whether wide resection is superior to intralesional treatment in terms of event-free survival and recurrence rates. However, functional outcome and complication rates are probably better after intralesional surgery compared to wide resection, although this is low-certainty evidence, considering the large effect size. Nevertheless, recurrence-free survival was excellent in both groups and a prospective RCT comparing intralesional treatment versus wide resection may be challenging for both practical and ethical reasons. Future research could instead focus on less invasive treatment strategies for these tumours by identifying predictors that help to stratify participants for surgical intervention or close observation.\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": "Overall certainty of the studies was very low, as all studies only described the results of the treatment in hindsight and none of the studies randomly selected patients between treatment groups." } ]
query-laysum	24095	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFear of dental pain is a major barrier to treatment for children who need dental care. The use of preoperative analgesics has the potential to reduce postoperative discomfort and intraoperative pain. We reviewed the available evidence to determine whether further research is warranted and to inform the development of prescribing guidelines. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of preoperative analgesics for intraoperative or postoperative pain relief (or both) in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment without general anaesthesia or sedation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 January 2016), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 January 2016), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 5 January 2016) and the ISI Web of Science (1945 to 5 January 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 5 January 2016. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We handsearched several specialist journals dating from 2000 to 2011.\nWe checked the reference lists of all eligible trials for additional studies. We contacted specialists in the field for any unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled clinical trials of analgesics given before dental treatment versus placebo or no analgesics in children and adolescents up to 17 years of age. We excluded children and adolescents having dental treatment under sedation (including nitrous oxide/oxygen) or general anaesthesia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed titles and abstracts of the articles obtained from the searches for eligibility, undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe included five trials in the review, with 190 participants in total. We did not identify any new studies for inclusion from the updated search in January 2016.\nThree trials were related to dental treatment, i.e. restorative and extraction treatments; two trials related to orthodontic treatment. We did not judge any of the included trials to be at low risk of bias.\nThree of the included trials compared paracetamol with placebo, only two of which provided data for analysis (presence or absence of parent-reported postoperative pain behaviour). Meta-analysis of the two trials gave arisk ratio (RR) for postoperative pain of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.22; two trials, 100 participants; P = 0.31), which showed no evidence of a benefit in taking paracetamol preoperatively (52% reporting pain in the placebo group versus 42% in the paracetamol group). One of these trials was at unclear risk of bias, and the other was at high risk. The quality of the evidence is low. One study did not have any adverse events; the other two trials did not mention adverse events.\nFour of the included trials compared ibuprofen with placebo. Three of these trials provided useable data. One trial reported no statistical difference in postoperative pain experienced by the ibuprofen group and the control group for children undergoing dental treatment. We pooled the data from the other two trials, which included participants who were having orthodontic separator replacement without a general anaesthetic, to determine the effect of preoperative ibuprofen on the severity of postoperative pain. There was a statistically significant mean difference in severity of postoperative pain of -13.44 (95% CI -23.01 to -3.88; two trials, 85 participants; P = 0.006) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100), which indicated a probable benefit for preoperative ibuprofen before this orthodontic procedure. However, both trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence is low. Only one of the trials reported adverse events (one participant from the ibuprofen group and one from the placebo group reporting a lip or cheek biting injury).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFrom the available evidence, we cannot determine whether or not preoperative analgesics are of benefit in paediatric dentistry for procedures under local anaesthetic. There is probably a benefit in using preoperative analgesics prior to orthodontic separator placement. The quality of the evidence is low. Further randomised clinical trials should be completed with appropriate sample sizes and well defined outcome measures.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Dental pain is common after dental procedures and can lead to increased fear of dental treatment, avoidance of dental treatment and other associated problems. Reduction of pain is important, particularly in children and adolescents. One way of managing this might be to give painkillers before treatment so that the painkillers can start to work right away.\nReview authors working with Cochrane Oral Health conducted this updated review to look at evidence for using painkillers in children, aged up to 17 years, undergoing treatment without sedation or general anaesthetic, but who may have had a local anaesthetic. The treatments included extracting teeth, restoring teeth and fitting braces." } ]
query-laysum	24096	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcupuncture is often used for prevention of tension-type headache but its effectiveness is still controversial. This is an update of our Cochrane review originally published in Issue 1, 2009 of The Cochrane Library.\nObjectives\nTo investigate whether acupuncture is a) more effective than no prophylactic treatment/routine care only; b) more effective than 'sham' (placebo) acupuncture; and c) as effective as other interventions in reducing headache frequency in adults with episodic or chronic tension-type headache.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and AMED to 19 January 2016. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 10 February 2016 for ongoing and unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials with a post-randomisation observation period of at least eight weeks, which compared the clinical effects of an acupuncture intervention with a control (treatment of acute headaches only or routine care), a sham acupuncture intervention or another prophylactic intervention in adults with episodic or chronic tension-type headache.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors checked eligibility; extracted information on participants, interventions, methods and results; and assessed study risk of bias and the quality of the acupuncture intervention. The main efficacy outcome measure was response (at least 50% reduction of headache frequency) after completion of treatment (three to four months after randomisation). To assess safety/acceptability we extracted the number of participants dropping out due to adverse effects and the number of participants reporting adverse effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).\nMain results\nTwelve trials (11 included in the previous version and one newly identified) with 2349 participants (median 56, range 10 to 1265) met the inclusion criteria.\nAcupuncture was compared with routine care or treatment of acute headaches only in two large trials (1265 and 207 participants), but they had quite different baseline headache frequency and management in the control groups. Neither trial was blinded but trial quality was otherwise high (low risk of bias). While effect size estimates of the two trials differed considerably, the proportion of participants experiencing at least 50% reduction of headache frequency was much higher in groups receiving acupuncture than in control groups (moderate quality evidence; trial 1: 302/629 (48%) versus 121/636 (19%); risk ratio (RR) 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 3.0; trial 2: 60/132 (45%) versus 3/75 (4%); RR 11; 95% CI 3.7 to 35). Long-term effects (beyond four months) were not investigated.\nAcupuncture was compared with sham acupuncture in seven trials of moderate to high quality (low risk of bias); five large studies provided data for one or more meta-analyses. Among participants receiving acupuncture, 205 of 391 (51%) had at least 50% reduction of headache frequency compared to 133 of 312 (43%) in the sham group after treatment (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.5; four trials; moderate quality evidence). Results six months after randomisation were similar. Withdrawals were low: 1 of 420 participants receiving acupuncture dropped out due to adverse effects and 0 of 343 receiving sham (six trials; low quality evidence). Three trials reported the number of participants reporting adverse effects: 29 of 174 (17%) with acupuncture versus 12 of 103 with sham (12%; odds ratio (OR) 1.3; 95% CI 0.60 to 2.7; low quality evidence).\nAcupuncture was compared with physiotherapy, massage or exercise in four trials of low to moderate quality (high risk of bias); study findings were inadequately reported. No trial found a significant superiority of acupuncture and for some outcomes the results slightly favoured the comparison therapy. None of these trials reported the number of participants dropping out due to adverse effects or the number of participants reporting adverse effects.\nOverall, the quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was moderate or low, downgraded mainly due to a lack of blinding and variable effect sizes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available results suggest that acupuncture is effective for treating frequent episodic or chronic tension-type headaches, but further trials - particularly comparing acupuncture with other treatment options - are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Bottom line\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The available evidence suggests that a course of acupuncture consisting of at least six treatment sessions can be a valuable option for people with frequent tension-type headache." } ]
query-laysum	24097	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requiring dialysis are at a particularly high risk of cardiovascular death and morbidity. Several clinical studies suggested that aldosterone antagonists would be a promising treatment option for people undergoing dialysis. However, the clinical efficacy and potential harm of aldosterone antagonists for people with CKD on dialysis has yet to be determined.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of aldosterone antagonists, both non-selective (spironolactone) and selective (eplerenone), in comparison to control (placebo or standard care) in people with CKD requiring haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 5 August 2020 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, and quasi-RCTs (where group allocation is by a method that is not truly random, such as alternation, assignment based on alternate medical records, date of birth, case record number, or other predictable methods) that compared aldosterone antagonists with placebo or standard care in people with CKD requiring dialysis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for included studies. We used a random-effects model meta-analysis to perform a quantitative synthesis of the data. We used the I² statistic to measure heterogeneity among the studies in each analysis. We indicated summary estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, or standardised mean differences (SMD) if different scales were used, with their 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each of the main outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.\nMain results\nWe included 16 studies (14 parallel RCTs and two cross-over RCTs) involving a total of 1446 participants. Thirteen studies compared spironolactone to placebo or standard care and one study compared eplerenone to a placebo. Most included studies had an unclear or high risk of bias. Compared to control, aldosterone antagonists probably reduced the risk of death (any cause) for people with CKD requiring dialysis (9 studies, 1119 participants: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence). Aldosterone antagonist probably decreased the risk of death due to cardiovascular disease (6 studies, 908 participants: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.64; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence) and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity (3 studies, 328 participants: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence). While aldosterone antagonists probably increased risk of gynaecomastia compared with control (4 studies, 768 participants: RR 5.95, 95% CI 1.93 to 18.3; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence), aldosterone antagonists may make little or no difference to the risk of hyperkalaemia (9 studies, 981 participants: RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.78; I² = 47%; low certainty of evidence). Aldosterone antagonists had a marginal effect on left ventricular mass among participants undergoing dialysis (8 studies, 633 participants: SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.05; I² = 77%).\nIn people with CKD requiring dialysis received aldosterone antagonists compared to control, there were 72 fewer deaths from all causes per 1000 participants (95% CI 47 to 98) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 14 (95% CI 10 to 21) and for gynaecomastia were 26 events per 1000 participants (95% CI 15 to 39) with a number need to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 38 (95% CI 26 to 68).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on moderate certainty of the evidence, aldosterone antagonists probably reduces the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death and probably reduces morbidity due to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease in people with CKD requiring dialysis. For the adverse effect of gynaecomastia, the risk was increased compared to control. For this outcome, the absolute risk was lower than the absolute risk of death. It is hoped the three large ongoing studies will provide better certainty of evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We concluded that aldosterone antagonists probably reduce the risk of death and heart disease but could increase the risk of gynaecomastia for people on dialysis. More studies are needed to clarify how effective and safe aldosterone antagonists are in people with CKD requiring dialysis." } ]
query-laysum	24098	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEwing sarcomas are solid tumours of the bone and soft tissue, that usually affect children, adolescents, and young adults. The incidence is about three cases per million a year, with a peak incidence at 12 years of age. Metastatic disease is detected in about 20 % to 30% of people, and is typically found in the lungs, bone, bone marrow, or a combination of these. Presence of metastatic disease at diagnosis (primary metastatic disease) is the most important adverse prognostic factor, and is associated with a five-year survival lower than 30%. High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) is used in various solid tumours with unfavourable prognoses in children, adolescents, and young adults. It has also been used as rescue after multifocal radiation of metastases. The hypothesis is that HDC regimens may overcome the resistance to standard multidrug chemotherapy and improve survival rates.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation compared with conventional chemotherapy in improving event-free survival, overall survival, quality-adjusted survival, and progression-free survival in children, adolescents, and young adults with primary metastatic Ewing sarcoma, and to determine the toxicity of the treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings from major international cancer-related conferences, and ongoing trial registers until January 2020. We also searched reference lists of included articles and review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or (historical) controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing the effectiveness of HDC and AHCT with conventional chemotherapy for children, adolescents, and young adults (younger than 30 years at the date of diagnostic biopsy) with primary metastatic Ewing sarcoma.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified one RCT, which investigated the effects of HDC with AHCT versus conventional chemotherapy with whole lung irradiation (WLI) in people with Ewing sarcoma metastasised to the lungs only at diagnosis. Only a selection of the participants were eligible for our review (N = 267: HDC with AHCT group N = 134; control group N = 133).\nThere may be no difference in event-free survival between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded one level each because of study limitations and imprecision. Overall survival and toxicity were not reported separately for the participants eligible for this review, while quality-adjusted survival and progression-free survival were not reported at all. We did not identify any studies that addressed children, adolescents, and young adults with Ewing sarcoma with metastases to other locations.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people with Ewing sarcoma with primary metastases to locations other than the lungs, there is currently no evidence from RCTs or CCTs to determine the efficacy of HDC with AHCT compared to conventional chemotherapy.\nBased on low-certainty evidence from one study (267 participants), there may be no difference in event-free survival between children, adolescents, and young adults with primary pulmonary metastatic Ewing sarcoma who receive HDC with AHCT and those who receive conventional chemotherapy with WLI.\nFurther high-quality research is needed. Results are anticipated for the EuroEwing 2008R3 study, in which the effects of HDC with treosulfan and melphalan followed by AHCT on survival, in people with Ewing sarcoma with metastatic disease to bone, other sites, or both were explored. Achieving high-quality studies in a selection of people with rare sarcoma requires long-term, multi-centre, international participant inclusion.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The certainty of the evidence was low." } ]
query-laysum	24099	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary rehabilitation benefits patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but gains are not maintained over time. Maintenance pulmonary rehabilitation has been defined as ongoing supervised exercise at a lower frequency than the initial pulmonary rehabilitation programme. It is not yet known whether a maintenance programme can preserve the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation over time. Studies of maintenance programmes following pulmonary rehabilitation are heterogeneous, especially regarding supervision frequency. Furthermore, new maintenance models (remote and home-based) are emerging.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether supervised pulmonary rehabilitation maintenance programmes improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL), exercise performance, and health care utilisation in COPD patients compared with usual care. Secondly, to examine in subgroup analyses the impact of supervision frequency and model (remote or in-person) during the supervised maintenance programme.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, and two additional trial registries platforms up to 31 March 2020, without restriction by language or type of publication. We screened the reference lists of all primary studies for additional references. We also hand-searched conference abstracts and grey literature through the Cochrane Airways Trials Register and CENTRAL.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised trials comparing pulmonary rehabilitation maintenance for COPD with attention control or usual care. The primary outcomes were HRQoL, exercise capacity and hospitalisation; the secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, mortality, direct costs of care, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Results data that were similar enough to be pooled were meta-analysed using a random-effects model, and those that could not be pooled were reported in narrative form. Subgroup analyses were undertaken for frequency of supervision (programmes offered monthly or less frequently, versus more frequently) and those using remote supervision (e.g. telerehabilitation versus face-to-face supervision). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 21 studies (39 reports) with 1799 COPD patients. Participants ranged in age from 52 years to 88 years. Disease severity ranged from 24% to 88% of the predicted forced expiratory volume in one second. Programme duration ranged from four weeks to 36 months. In-person supervision was provided in 12 studies, and remote supervision was provided in six studies (telephone or web platform). Four studies provided a combination of in-person and remote supervision. Most studies had a high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of participants, and high risk of detection, attrition, and reporting bias.\nLow- to moderate-certainty evidence showed that supervised maintenance programmes may improve health-related quality of life at six to 12 months following pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire total score mean difference (MD) 0.54 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 1.03, 258 participants, four studies), with a mean difference that exceeded the minimal important difference of 0.5 points for this outcome. It is possible that supervised maintenance could improve six-minute walk distance, but this is uncertain (MD 26 metres (m), 95% CI -1.04 to 52.84, 639 participants, 10 studies). There was little to no difference between the maintenance programme and the usual care group in exacerbations or all-cause hospitalizations, or the chance of death (odds ratio (OR) for mortality 0.73, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.51, 755 participants, six studies). Insufficient data were available to understand the impact of the frequency of supervision, or of remote versus in-person supervision. No adverse events were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests that supervised maintenance programmes for COPD patients after pulmonary rehabilitation are not associated with increased adverse events, may improve health-related quality of life, and could possibly improve exercise capacity at six to 12 months. Effects on exacerbations, hospitalisation and mortality are similar to those of usual care. However, the strength of evidence was limited because most included studies had a high risk of bias and small sample size. The optimal supervision frequency and models for supervised maintenance programmes are still unclear.\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": "Many studies showed a high risk of bias because participants knew whether they were in the intervention group or the control group. Some outcomes were based on a small number of studies, and patients, resulting in inconsistent and imprecise results. This means that these results may not apply to all supervised maintenance programme models of delivery." } ]
query-laysum	24100	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nApnoeic oxygenation is the delivery of oxygen during the apnoeic phase preceding intubation. It is used to prevent respiratory complications of endotracheal intubation that have the potential to lead to significant adverse events including dysrhythmia, haemodynamic decompensation, hypoxic brain injury and death. Oxygen delivered by nasal cannulae during the apnoeic phase of intubation (apnoeic oxygenation) may serve as a non-invasive adjunct to endotracheal intubation to decrease the incidence of hypoxaemia, morbidity and mortality.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of apnoeic oxygenation before intubation in adults in the prehospital, emergency department, intensive care unit and operating theatre environments compared to no apnoeic oxygenation during intubation.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the use of any form of apnoeic oxygenation including high flow and low flow nasal cannulae versus no apnoeic oxygenation during intubation. We defined quasi-randomization as participant allocation to each arm by means that were not truly random, such as alternation, case record number or date of birth. We excluded comparative prospective cohort and comparative retrospective cohort studies, physiological modelling studies and case reports.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. hospital stay and 2. incidence of severe hypoxaemia. Our secondary outcomes were 3. incidence of hypoxaemia, 4. lowest recorded saturation of pulse oximetry (SpO2), 5. intensive care unit (ICU) stay, 6. first pass success rate, 7. adverse events and 8. mortality. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 23 RCTs (2264 participants) in our analyses. Eight studies (729 participants) investigated the use of low-flow (15 L/minute or less), and 15 studies (1535 participants) investigated the use of high-flow (greater than 15 L/minute) oxygen. Settings were varied and included the emergency department (2 studies, 327 participants), ICU (7 studies, 913 participants) and operating theatre (14 studies, 1024 participants). We considered two studies to be at low risk of bias across all domains.\nNone of the studies reported on hospital length of stay. In predominately critically ill people, there may be little to no difference in the incidence of severe hypoxaemia (SpO2 less than 80%) when using apnoeic oxygenation at any flow rate from the start of apnoea until successful intubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.11; P = 0.25, I² = 0%; 15 studies, 1802 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere was insufficient evidence of any effect on the incidence of hypoxaemia (SpO2 less than 93%) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.46; P = 0.25, I² = 36%; 3 studies, 489 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be an improvement in the lowest recorded oxygen saturation, with a mean increase of 1.9% (95% CI 0.75% to 3.05%; P < 0.001, I² = 86%; 15 studies, 1525 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in the duration of ICU stay with the use of apnoeic oxygenation during intubation (mean difference (MD) ‒1.13 days, 95% CI ‒1.51 to ‒0.74; P < 0.0001, I² = 46%; 5 studies, 815 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in first pass success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; P = 0.79, I² = 0%; 8 studies, 826 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in incidence of adverse events including oral trauma, arrhythmia, aspiration, hypotension, pneumonia and cardiac arrest when apnoeic oxygenation is used. There was insufficient evidence about any effect on mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00; P = 0.06, I² = 0%; 6 studies, 1015 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was some evidence that oxygenation during the apnoeic phase of intubation may improve the lowest recorded oxygen saturation. However, the differences in oxygen saturation were unlikely to be clinically significant. This did not translate into any measurable effect on the incidence of hypoxaemia or severe hypoxaemia in a group of predominately critically ill people. We were unable to assess the influence on hospital length of stay; however, there was a reduction in ICU stay in the apnoeic oxygenation group. The mechanism for this is unclear as there was little to no difference in first pass success or adverse event rates.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found 23 studies with 2264 participants. The studies were conducted in intensive care units and operating theatres in countries around the world. Pharmaceutical companies contributed funding to some studies." } ]
query-laysum	24101	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAlthough antidepressants are often a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe depression, many people do not respond adequately to medication, and are said to have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Little evidence exists to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for these people.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of standard pharmacological treatments for adults with TRD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (March 2016), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science (31 December 2018), the World Health Organization trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished and ongoing studies, and screened bibliographies of included studies and relevant systematic reviews without date or language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years with unipolar depression (based on criteria from DSM-IV-TR or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria or Research Diagnostic Criteria) who had not responded to a minimum of four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. Interventions were:\n(1) increasing the dose of antidepressant monotherapy;\n(2) switching to a different antidepressant monotherapy;\n(3) augmenting treatment with another antidepressant;\n(4) augmenting treatment with a non-antidepressant.\nAll were compared with continuing antidepressant monotherapy. We excluded studies of non-standard pharmacological treatments (e.g. sex hormones, vitamins, herbal medicines and food supplements).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers used standard Cochrane methods to extract data, assess risk of bias, and resolve disagreements. We analysed continuous outcomes with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated a relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Where sufficient data existed, we conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models.\nMain results\nWe included 10 RCTs (2731 participants). Nine were conducted in outpatient settings and one in both in- and outpatients. Mean age of participants ranged from 42 - 50.2 years, and most were female.\nOne study investigated switching to, or augmenting current antidepressant treatment with, another antidepressant (mianserin). Another augmented current antidepressant treatment with the antidepressant mirtazapine. Eight studies augmented current antidepressant treatment with a non-antidepressant (either an anxiolytic (buspirone) or an antipsychotic (cariprazine; olanzapine; quetiapine (3 studies); or ziprasidone (2 studies)). We judged most studies to be at a low or unclear risk of bias. Only one of the included studies was not industry-sponsored.\nThere was no evidence of a difference in depression severity when current treatment was switched to mianserin (MD on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) = -1.8, 95% CI -5.22 to 1.62, low-quality evidence)) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. Nor was there evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out of treatment (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.59, low-quality evidence; dropouts 38% in the mianserin switch group; 18% in the control).\nAugmenting current antidepressant treatment with mianserin was associated with an improvement in depression symptoms severity scores from baseline (MD on HAM-D -4.8, 95% CI -8.18 to -1.42; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.72; low-quality evidence; 19% dropouts in the mianserin-augmented group; 38% in the control). When current antidepressant treatment was augmented with mirtazapine, there was little difference in depressive symptoms (MD on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) -1.7, 95% CI -4.03 to 0.63; high-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in dropout numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62; dropouts 2% in mirtazapine-augmented group; 3% in the control).\nAugmentation with buspirone provided no evidence of a benefit in terms of a reduction in depressive symptoms (MD on Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) -0.30, 95% CI -9.48 to 8.88; low-quality evidence) or numbers of drop-outs (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.53; low-quality evidence; dropouts 11% in buspirone-augmented group; 19% in the control).\nSeverity of depressive symptoms reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine (MD on MADRS -1.50, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.25; high-quality evidence), olanzapine (MD on HAM-D -7.9, 95% CI -16.76 to 0.96; low-quality evidence; MD on MADRS -12.4, 95% CI -22.44 to -2.36; low-quality evidence), quetiapine (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.18; I2 = 6%, high-quality evidence), or ziprasidone (MD on HAM-D -2.73, 95% CI -4.53 to -0.93; I2 = 0, moderate-quality evidence) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy.\nHowever, a greater number of participants dropped out when antidepressant monotherapy was augmented with an antipsychotic (cariprazine RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.41; quetiapine RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.17; ziprasidone RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.55) compared with antidepressant monotherapy, although estimates for olanzapine augmentation were imprecise (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.69). Dropout rates ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic, and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups. The most common reasons for dropping out were side effects or adverse events.\nWe also summarised data about response and remission rates (based on changes in depressive symptoms) for included studies, along with data on social adjustment and social functioning, quality of life, economic outcomes and adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA small body of evidence shows that augmenting current antidepressant therapy with mianserin or with an antipsychotic (cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine or ziprasidone) improves depressive symptoms over the short-term (8 to 12 weeks). However, this evidence is mostly of low or moderate quality due to imprecision of the estimates of effects. Improvements with antipsychotics need to be balanced against the increased likelihood of dropping out of treatment or experiencing an adverse event. Augmentation of current antidepressant therapy with a second antidepressant, mirtazapine, does not produce a clinically important benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms (high-quality evidence). The evidence regarding the effects of augmenting current antidepressant therapy with buspirone or switching current antidepressant treatment to mianserin is currently insufficient.\nFurther trials are needed to increase the certainty of these findings and to examine long-term effects of treatment, as well as the effectiveness of other pharmacological treatment strategies.\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": "One small study investigated changing current antidepressant treatment to a different antidepressant (mianserin) or adding mianserin to current treatment. We are uncertain about the effect changing treatment to mianserin has on depressive symptoms or the likelihood of dropping out of treatment. People who added mianserin to their current antidepressant treatment showed fewer depressive symptoms, but the likelihood of dropping out was not clear.\nAdding the antidepressant mirtazapine to current antidepressant treatment had little or no effect on depressive symptoms or on the likelihood of dropping out of treatment.\nThe effect of adding an anti-anxiety medication (buspirone) to ongoing antidepressant treatment on depressive symptoms or dropping out is currently uncertain. These findings were based on one small study.\nMost studies looked at the effects of adding an antipsychotic medication (cariprazine, quetiapine, ziprasidone or olanzapine) to current antidepressant treatment. These suggested that adding cariprazine results in a small reduction in depressive symptoms; adding quetiapine reduces depressive symptoms; and adding ziprasidone probably results in a small reduction in depressive symptoms. However, our results also suggest that adding these medicines to current treatment probably increases the likelihood of dropping out of treatment. The most common reasons for dropping out were side effects or adverse events. Adding olanzapine to ongoing treatment may reduce depressive symptoms, but the effects on dropping out are uncertain (findings based on one small study).\nNearly all (9/10) of the studies assessed the effects of treatment in the short-term – six or eight weeks after beginning the new treatment – so the longer term effects of most treatments are unknown." } ]
query-laysum	24102	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeriodontal (gum) disease and dental caries (tooth decay) are the most common causes of tooth loss; dental plaque plays a major role in the development of these diseases. Effective oral hygiene involves removing dental plaque, for example, by regular toothbrushing. People with intellectual disabilities (ID) can have poor oral hygiene and oral health outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of oral hygiene interventions, specifically the mechanical removal of plaque, for people with intellectual disabilities (ID).\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 4 February 2019: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Register of Studies), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and PsycINFO Ovid. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. The Embase search was restricted by date due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project, which makes available clinical trials indexed in Embase through CENTRAL. We handsearched specialist conference abstracts from the International Association of Disability and Oral Health (2006 to 2016).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and some types of non-randomised studies (NRS) (non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies) that evaluated oral hygiene interventions targeted at people with ID or their carers, or both. We used the definition of ID in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10). We defined oral hygiene as the mechanical removal of plaque. We excluded studies that evaluated chemical removal of plaque, or mechanical and chemical removal of plaque combined.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently screened search records, identified relevant studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and judged the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE criteria. We contacted study authors for additional information if required. We reported RCTs and NRSs separately.\nMain results\nWe included 19 RCTs and 15 NRSs involving 1795 adults and children with ID and 354 carers. Interventions evaluated were: special manual toothbrushes, electric toothbrushes, oral hygiene training, scheduled dental visits plus supervised toothbrushing, discussion of clinical photographs showing plaque, varied frequency of toothbrushing, plaque-disclosing agents and individualised care plans. We categorised results as short (six weeks or less), medium (between six weeks and 12 months) and long term (more than 12 months).\nMost studies were small; all were at overall high or unclear risk of bias. None of the studies reported quality of life or dental caries. We present below the evidence available from RCTs (or NRS if the comparison had no RCTs) for gingival health (inflammation and plaque) and adverse effects, as well as knowledge and behaviour outcomes for the training studies.\nVery low-certainty evidence suggested a special manual toothbrush (the Superbrush) reduced gingival inflammation (GI), and possibly plaque, more than a conventional toothbrush in the medium term (GI: mean difference (MD) –12.40, 95% CI –24.31 to –0.49; plaque: MD –0.44, 95% CI –0.93 to 0.05; 1 RCT, 18 participants); brushing was carried out by the carers. In the short term, neither toothbrush showed superiority (GI: MD –0.10, 95% CI –0.77 to 0.57; plaque: MD 0.20, 95% CI –0.45 to 0.85; 1 RCT, 25 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence).\nModerate- and low-certainty evidence found no difference between electric and manual toothbrushes for reducing GI or plaque, respectively, in the medium term (GI: MD 0.02, 95% CI –0.06 to 0.09; plaque: standardised mean difference 0.29, 95% CI –0.07 to 0.65; 2 RCTs, 120 participants). Short-term findings were inconsistent (4 RCTs; low- to very low-certainty evidence).\nLow-certainty evidence suggested training carers in oral hygiene care had no detectable effect on levels of GI or plaque in the medium term (GI: MD –0.09, 95% CI –0.63 to 0.45; plaque: MD –0.07, 95% CI –0.26 to 0.13; 2 RCTs, 99 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested oral hygiene knowledge of carers was better in the medium term after training (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.06; 2 RCTs, 189 participants); this was not found in the short term, and results for changes in behaviour, attitude and self-efficacy were mixed.\nOne RCT (10 participants) found that training people with ID in oral hygiene care reduced plaque but not GI in the short term (GI: MD –0.28, 95% CI –0.90 to 0.34; plaque: MD –0.47, 95% CI –0.92 to –0.02; very low-certainty evidence).\nOne RCT (304 participants) found that scheduled dental recall visits (at 1-, 3- or 6-month intervals) plus supervised daily toothbrushing were more likely than usual care to reduce GI (pocketing but not bleeding) and plaque in the long term (low-certainty evidence).\nOne RCT (29 participants) found that motivating people with ID about oral hygiene by discussing photographs of their teeth with plaque highlighted by a plaque-disclosing agent, did not reduce plaque in the medium term (very low-certainty evidence).\nOne RCT (80 participants) found daily toothbrushing by dental students was more effective for reducing plaque in people with ID than once- or twice-weekly toothbrushing in the short term (low-certainty evidence).\nA benefit to gingival health was found by one NRS that evaluated toothpaste with a plaque-disclosing agent and one that evaluated individualised oral care plans (very low-certainty evidence).\nMost studies did not report adverse effects; of those that did, only one study considered them as a formal outcome. Some studies reported participant difficulties using the electric or special manual toothbrushes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough some oral hygiene interventions for people with ID show benefits, the clinical importance of these benefits is unclear. The evidence is mainly low or very low certainty. Moderate-certainty evidence was available for only one finding: electric and manual toothbrushes were similarly effective for reducing gingival inflammation in people with ID in the medium term. Larger, higher-quality RCTs are recommended to endorse or refute the findings of this review. In the meantime, oral hygiene care and advice should be based on professional expertise and the needs and preferences of the individual with ID and their carers.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "How effective are oral hygiene programmes for people with intellectual disabilities?" } ]
query-laysum	24103	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOrthodontic relapse can be defined as the tendency for teeth to return to their pre-treatment position, and this occurs especially in lower front teeth (lower canines and lower incisors). Retention, to maintain the position of corrected teeth, has become one of the most important phases of orthodontic treatment. However, 10 years after the completion of orthodontic treatment, only 30% to 50% of orthodontic patients effectively retain the satisfactory alignment initially obtained. After 20 years, satisfactory alignment reduces to 10%. When relapse occurs, simple effective strategies are required to effectively manage the problem. The periodontal, physiological or psychological conditions may be different from those before orthodontic treatment, so re-treatment methods may also need to be different.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions used to manage relapse of the lower front teeth after first fixed orthodontic treatment.\nSearch methods\nThe following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 9 November 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 9 November 2012), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 9 November 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. A thorough handsearch was done in relation to the following journals: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1970 to 9 November 2012), Angle Orthodontist (1978 to 9 November 2012), European Journal of Orthodontics (1979 to 9 November 2012), Journal of Orthodontics (1978 to 9 November 2012), Chinese Journal of Stomatology (1953 to 9 November 2012), West China Journal of Stomatology (1983 to 9 November 2012), Chinese Journal of Dental Materials and Devices (1992 to 9 November 2012) and Chinese Journal of Orthodontics (1994 to 9 November 2012).\nSelection criteria\nWe would have included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared any of the following: fixed options (including labial braces, lingual braces and fixed lingual wire), removable options (including Hawley's retainer with active components such as Hawley's retainer with spring elastomeric module, Bloore removable aligner and any other modifications on the Hawley's retainer to correct the lower front teeth, and invisible removable aligners such as Invisalign and Clearstep) and no active treatment for the management of relapsed lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment. We excluded RCTs of participants with craniofacial deformities/syndromes or serious skeletal deformities who received prior surgical/surgical orthodontic treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors, independently and in duplicate, assessed the results of the searches to identify studies for inclusion. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any RCTs which met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review has revealed that there was no evidence from RCTs to show that one intervention was superior to another to manage the relapse of the alignment of lower front teeth using any method or index, aesthetic assessment by participants and practitioners, treatment time, patient's discomfort, quality of life, cost-benefit considerations, stability of the correction, and side effects including pain, gingivitis, enamel decalcification and root resorption. There is an urgent need for RCTs in this area to identify the most effective and safe method for managing the relapse of alignment of the lower front teeth.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review of existing studies was carried out by the Cochrane Oral Health Group and the evidence is current up to 9 November 2012.\nIn this review there are no trials published between 1950 and 2012 in which patients were randomly treated with either fixed braces, removable retainers or no treatment." } ]
query-laysum	24104	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAn accurate handover of clinical information is of great importance to continuity and safety of care. If clinically relevant information is not shared accurately and in a timely manner it may lead to adverse events, delays in treatment and diagnosis, inappropriate treatment and omission of care. During the last decade the call for interventions to improve handovers has increased. These interventions aim to reduce the risk of miscommunication, misunderstanding and the omission of critical information.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve hospital nursing handover, specifically:\nto identify which nursing handover style(s) are associated with improved outcomes for patients in the hospital setting and which nursing handover style(s) are associated with improved nursing process outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases for primary studies: Cochrane EPOC Group specialised register (to 19 September 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to 1 March 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 1 March 2013) OvidSP, EMBASE (1947 to 1 March 2013) OvidSP, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (1980 to 1 March 2013) EbscoHost and ISI Web of Knowledge (Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index) (to 9 July 2012). The Database of Abstracts of Reviews (DARE) was searched for related reviews. We screened the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/ and Current Controlled Trials www.controlled-trials.com/mrct and we conducted a search of grey literature web sites.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs or cluster-RCTs) evaluating any nursing handover style between nurses in a hospital setting with the aim of preventing adverse events or optimising the transfer of accurate essential information required for continuity of care, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.\nMain results\nThe search identified 2178 citations, 28 of which were considered potentially relevant. After independent review of the full text of these studies, no eligible studies were identified for inclusion in this review due to the absence of studies with a randomised controlled study design.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was no evidence available to support conclusions about the effectiveness of nursing handover styles for ensuring continuity of information in hospitalised patients because we found no studies that fulfilled the methodological criteria for this review. As a consequence, uncertainty about the most effective practice remains. Research efforts should focus on strengthening the evidence abut the effectiveness of nursing handover styles using well designed, rigorous studies. According to current knowledge, the following guiding principles can be applied when redesigning the nursing handover process: face-to-face communication, structured documentation, patient involvement and use of IT technology to support the process.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What styles of nursing handover exist?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In daily practice handovers are done in various ways, some handovers are done through nurses talking to each other (verbal handovers). Others are done through nurses reading the patient’s medical notes or through a combination of reading and talking to each other. In some cases they are done at the patient’s bedside, so that the patient can contribute, if desired." } ]
query-laysum	24105	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAvascular necrosis of bone is a frequent and severe complication of sickle cell disease and its treatment is not standardised. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo determine the impact of any surgical procedure compared with other surgical interventions or non-surgical procedures, on avascular necrosis of bone in people with sickle cell disease in terms of efficacy and safety.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Additional trials were sought from both ongoing trial registries and the reference lists of papers identified by the search strategy.\nDate of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 17 September 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized clinical trials comparing specific therapies for avascular necrosis of bone in people with sickle cell disease.\nData collection and analysis\nEach author independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Given only one trial was identified, meta-analyses were not possible.\nMain results\nOne trial (46 participants) was eligible for inclusion. After randomization eight participants were withdrawn, mainly because they declined to participate in the trial. Data were analysed for 38 participants at the end of the trial. After a mean follow-up of three years, hip core decompression and physical therapy did not show clinical improvement when compared with physical therapy alone using the score from the original trial (an improvement of 18.1 points for those treated with intervention therapy versus an improvement of 15.7 points with control therapy). We are very uncertain whether there is any difference between groups regarding major complications (hip pain, risk ratio 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.60; vaso-occlusive crises, risk ratio 1.14 (95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.80; very low quality of evidence); and acute chest syndrome, risk ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 2.56; very low quality of evidence)). This trial did not report results on mortality or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence that adding hip core decompression to physical therapy achieves clinical improvement in people with sickle cell disease with avascular necrosis of bone compared to physical therapy alone. However, we highlight that our conclusion is based on one trial with high attrition rates. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the role of hip-core depression for this clinical condition. Endpoints should focus on participants' subjective experience (e.g. quality of life and pain) as well as more objective 'time-to-event' measures (e.g. mortality, survival, hip longevity). The availability of participants to allow adequate trial power will be a key consideration for endpoint choice.\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": "After a mean follow-up of three years, the combination of surgery and physical therapies did not show clinical improvement when compared with physical therapy alone. Given that the results are imprecise, we are uncertain as to whether surgery and physical therapies in combination has an important effect on hip pain, vaso-occlusive crises and acute chest syndrome. Trial authors did not report information on mortality and quality of life." } ]
query-laysum	24106	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDifferent first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor.\nCompared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty).\nCompared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty).\nCompared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty).\nCompared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty).\nFor the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "More head-to-head trials are needed comparing low-dose thiazides with angiotensin receptor blockers and renin inhibitors." } ]
query-laysum	24107	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA key function of health systems is implementing interventions to improve health, but coverage of essential health interventions remains low in low-income countries. Implementing interventions can be challenging, particularly if it entails complex changes in clinical routines; in collaborative patterns among different healthcare providers and disciplines; in the behaviour of providers, patients or other stakeholders; or in the organisation of care. Decision-makers may use a range of strategies to implement health interventions, and these choices should be based on evidence of the strategies' effectiveness.\nObjectives\nTo provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on alternative implementation strategies and informing refinements of the framework for implementation strategies presented in the overview.\nMethods\nWe searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of implementation strategies on professional practice and patient outcomes and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the review findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.\nMain results\nWe identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 39 of them in this overview. An additional four reviews provided supplementary information. Of the 39 reviews, 32 had only minor limitations and 7 had important methodological limitations. Most studies in the reviews were from high-income countries. There were no studies from low-income countries in eight reviews.\nImplementation strategies addressed in the reviews were grouped into four categories – strategies targeting:\n1. healthcare organisations (e.g. strategies to change organisational culture; 1 review);\n2. healthcare workers by type of intervention (e.g. printed educational materials; 14 reviews);\n3. healthcare workers to address a specific problem (e.g. unnecessary antibiotic prescription; 9 reviews);\n4. healthcare recipients (e.g. medication adherence; 15 reviews).\nOverall, we found the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects.\n1.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers: educational meetings, nutrition training of health workers, educational outreach, practice facilitation, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, and tailored interventions.\n2.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers for specific types of problems: training healthcare workers to be more patient-centred in clinical consultations, use of birth kits, strategies such as clinician education and patient education to reduce antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care settings, and in-service neonatal emergency care training.\n3. Strategies targeted at healthcare recipients: mass media interventions to increase uptake of HIV testing; intensive self-management and adherence, intensive disease management programmes to improve health literacy; behavioural interventions and mobile phone text messages for adherence to antiretroviral therapy; a one time incentive to start or continue tuberculosis prophylaxis; default reminders for patients being treated for active tuberculosis; use of sectioned polythene bags for adherence to malaria medication; community-based health education, and reminders and recall strategies to increase vaccination uptake; interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening (invitations, education, counselling, access to health promotion nurse and intensive recruitment); health insurance information and application support.\nAuthors' conclusions\nReliable systematic reviews have evaluated a wide range of strategies for implementing evidence-based interventions in low-income countries. Most of the available evidence is focused on strategies targeted at healthcare workers and healthcare recipients and relates to process-based outcomes. Evidence of the effects of strategies targeting healthcare organisations is scarce.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this overview?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The aim of this Cochrane Overview is to provide a broad summary of what is known about the effects of strategies for implementing interventions to improve health in low-income countries.\nThis overview is based on 39 relevant systematic reviews. Each of these reviews searched for studies that evaluated the different types of implementation strategies within the scope of the question addressed by the review. The reviews included a total of 1332 studies.\nThis overview is one of a series of four Cochrane Overviews that evaluate different health system arrangements." } ]
query-laysum	24108	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPlatelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. We have now split this review into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review is the first part of the original review.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given when patient bleeds) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding, usually when the platelet count falls below a given trigger level) in patients with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent or treat bleeding in patients with malignant haematological disorders receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe identified seven RCTs that compared therapeutic platelet transfusions to prophylactic platelet transfusions in haematology patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. One trial is still ongoing, leaving six trials eligible with a total of 1195 participants. These trials were conducted between 1978 and 2013 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations. We were able to critically appraise five of these studies, which contained separate data for each arm, and were unable to perform quantitative analysis on one study that did not report the numbers of participants in each treatment arm.\nOverall the quality of evidence per outcome was low to moderate according to the GRADE approach. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the studies identified had some threats to validity. We deemed only one study to be at low risk of bias in all domains other than blinding.\nTwo RCTs (801 participants) reported at least one bleeding episode within 30 days of the start of the study. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to considerable statistical heterogeneity between studies. The statistical heterogeneity seen may relate to the different methods used in studies for the assessment and grading of bleeding. The underlying patient diagnostic and treatment categories also appeared to have some effect on bleeding risk. Individually these studies showed a similar effect, that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion strategy was associated with an increased risk of clinically significant bleeding compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. Number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant was higher in the therapeutic-only group than in the prophylactic group (one RCT; 600 participants; mean difference 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.90; moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a therapeutic-only transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 801 participants; risk ratio (RR) 4.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 28.12; low-quality evidence). Two RCTs (801 participants) reported time to first bleeding episode. As there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies individually found that time to first bleeding episode was shorter in the therapeutic-only group compared with the prophylactic platelet transfusion group.\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine any difference in all-cause mortality within 30 days of the start of the study using a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 629 participants). Mortality was a rare event, and therefore larger studies would be needed to establish the effect of these alternative strategies. There was a clear reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the therapeutic-only arm (two RCTs, 991 participants; standardised mean reduction of 0.50 platelet transfusions per participant, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.37; moderate-quality evidence). None of the studies reported quality of life. There was no evidence of any difference in the frequency of adverse events, such as transfusion reactions, between a therapeutic-only and prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 991 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68), although the confidence intervals were wide.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low- to moderate-grade evidence that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with increased risk of bleeding when compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy in haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. There is insufficient evidence to determine any difference in mortality rates and no evidence of any difference in adverse events between a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. A therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with a clear reduction in the number of platelet components administered.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We evaluated the evidence regarding whether giving platelet transfusions to patients with low platelets who are bleeding (therapeutically) is as effective and safe as giving platelet transfusions regularly to prevent bleeding (prophylactically). Our target population was people with blood cancers who were receiving intensive myelosuppressive (causing decreased blood cell production) chemotherapy treatments or stem cell transplantation." } ]
query-laysum	24109	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCrohn's disease (CD) is an inflammatory bowel disease that causes inflammation and stricture, of any part of the mucosa and the gut wall. It forms skip lesions, sparing the areas in between the affected parts of the gastrointestinal tract. Crohn's disease could have one of three complications; fistula, intestinal obstruction due to stricture, or gastrointestinal inflammation presenting as severe diarrhoea.\nStem cell therapy (SCT) is an innovative treatment that has been recently used in CD. The exact role of SCT in CD is still unclear. Stem cells modify the immunity of the patients or act as a “reset tool” for the immune system as in the case of systemically-injected stem cells, or regenerate the affected area of necrotic and inflammatory tissue as in the case of local injection into the lesion. Stem cells are a wide variety of cells including pluripotent stem cells or differentiated stem cells. The hazards range from rejection to symptomatic manifestations as fever or increase infection.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this Cochrane systematic review is to assess the effects of stem cell transplantation compared to standard of care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with refractory CD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinical trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization-International Clinical Trials Registry Platform WHO ICTRP) from inception to 19 March 2021, without any language, publication year, or publication status restrictions. In addition, we searched references of included studies and review articles for further references. An update of the published studies was done during the writing of the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness and safety of SCT in refractory CD versus standard care alone (control) or with placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (SEN and SFA) independently screened the studies retrieved from the search results for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreement was resolved through a consensus between the authors. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe conducted our search on 19 March 2021 and identified 639 records. We added two records by a manual search of the published reviews on the topic to a total of 641 records. The Covidence program removed 125 duplicates making a total of 516 reports. Two review authors (SEN and SFA) screened titles and abstracts and excluded 451 records with the remaining 65 for full-text records screened independently by the two authors; only 18 studies were considered for inclusion.\nWe included seven RCTs with a total of 442 participants for the meta-analysis. The intervention group included 234 patients, and the control group included 208 patients. Nine trials are ongoing and, two abstracts are awaiting classification.\nAll patients in the control and intervention groups received the standard therapy for CD. Only three studies used blinding methods for the control group in the form of a placebo, with one study of the three stated that the blinding method was inefficient. The patients and personnel were aware of the intervention in the rest of the four studies as they were open-label trials. However, the effect of unblinding was balanced by the low risk of detection bias in five of the included studies.\nThe evidence is uncertain about the effect of SCT on achieving clinical remission as compared to control/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.80 to 4.41; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SCT on achieving Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) <150 at 24 weeks compared to control (RR1.02 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56; 4 studies; very-low certainty evidence).\nSCT is likely to achieve fistula closure as compared to the control/placebo both in the short term (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.96); low-certainty evidence) and in the long term (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.87; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence) follow-up.\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SCT to cause no difference in the number of total adverse events as compared to the control/placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.88 to 1.13); 4 studies; very-low-certainty evidence). However, SCT is likely to increase the number of serious adverse events as compared to the control/placebo (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.67; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SCT to decrease the withdrawal due to adverse events as compared to the control/placebo (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.89; 3 studies; very-low certainty evidence).\nFunding by pharmaceutical companies was found in three studies, with one including more than 50% of our studied population.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSCT shows an uncertain effect on clinical remission with low certainty of evidence. SCT shows an uncertain effect on CDAI score to reach <150 after 24 weeks of treatment, with very low certainty evidence. SCT shows beneficial effects on fistula-closure during short and long-term follow-up with low-certainty evidence in both outcomes. There was no change in the total number of adverse events with SCT as compared to control, with very low certainty evidence. While there was a moderate effect on increasing the number of serious adverse events in the SCT group, as compared to the control with low-certainty evidence. Withdrawal due to adverse events was slightly higher in the control group with very low certainty evidence.\nAll the participants were refractory to standard medical treatment, but the number of participants was small, this may limit the generalizability of the results. Further research is needed for validation. More objective outcomes are needed in the assessment of stem cell effectiveness in the treatment of Crohn's disease, especially the intestinal CD subtype; with standardization of the dose, methods of stem cell preparation, route of administration, and inclusion criteria to the studies to achieve clear results.\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": "Stem cells when combined with standard medical treatment could be better than the medical treatment alone or with a placebo (a dummy treatment) in the healing of the opening in the perianal region connected to the bowels caused by CD (perianal fistula).\nStem cells when combined with standard medical treatment could be safe when compared to the medical treatment alone or with a placebo in treating the bowel inflammation associated with Crohn's disease (total and serious adverse events)." } ]
query-laysum	24110	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEmpyema refers to pus in the pleural space, commonly due to adjacent pneumonia, chest wall injury, or a complication of thoracic surgery. A range of therapeutic options are available for its management, ranging from percutaneous aspiration and intercostal drainage to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or thoracotomy drainage. Intrapleural fibrinolytics may also be administered following intercostal drain insertion to facilitate pleural drainage. There is currently a lack of consensus regarding optimal treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of surgical versus non-surgical treatments for complicated parapneumonic effusion or pleural empyema.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (Ebscohost) (1946 to July week 3 2013, July 2015 to October 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid) (1 May 2013 to July week 1 2015), Embase (2010 to October 2016), CINAHL (1981 to October 2016) and LILACS (1982 to October 2016) on 20 October 2016. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing studies (December 2016).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials that compared a surgical with a non-surgical method of management for all age groups with pleural empyema.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked the data for accuracy. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included eight randomised controlled trials with a total of 391 participants. Six trials focused on children and two on adults. Trials compared tube thoracostomy drainage (non-surgical), with or without intrapleural fibrinolytics, to either VATS or thoracotomy (surgical) for the management of pleural empyema. Assessment of risk of bias for the included studies was generally unclear for selection and blinding but low for attrition and reporting bias. Data analyses compared thoracotomy versus tube thoracostomy and VATS versus tube thoracostomy. We pooled data for meta-analysis where appropriate. We performed a subgroup analysis for children along with a sensitivity analysis for studies that used fibrinolysis in non-surgical treatment arms.\nThe comparison of open thoracotomy versus thoracostomy drainage included only one study in children, which reported no deaths in either treatment arm. However, the trial showed a statistically significant reduction in mean hospital stay of 5.90 days for those treated with primary thoracotomy. It also showed a statistically significant reduction in procedural complications for those treated with thoracotomy compared to thoracostomy drainage. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for length of hospital stay and procedural complications outcomes to moderate due to the small sample size.\nThe comparison of VATS versus thoracostomy drainage included seven studies, which we pooled in a meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality or procedural complications between groups. This was true for both adults and children with or without fibrinolysis. However, mortality data were limited: one study reported one death in each treatment arm, and seven studies reported no deaths. There was a statistically significant reduction in mean length of hospital stay for those treated with VATS. The subgroup analysis showed the same result in adults, but there was insufficient evidence to estimate an effect for children. We could not perform a separate analysis for fibrinolysis for this outcome because all included studies used fibrinolysis in the non-surgical arms. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low for mortality (due to wide confidence intervals and indirectness), and moderate for other outcomes in this comparison due to either high heterogeneity or wide confidence intervals.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur findings suggest there is no statistically significant difference in mortality between primary surgical and non-surgical management of pleural empyema for all age groups. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery may reduce length of hospital stay compared to thoracostomy drainage alone.\nThere was insufficient evidence to assess the impact of fibrinolytic therapy.\nA number of common outcomes were reported in the included studies that were not directly examined in our primary and secondary outcomes. These included duration of chest tube drainage, duration of fever, analgesia requirement, and total cost of treatment. Future studies focusing on patient-centred outcomes, such as patient functional scores, and other clinically relevant outcomes, such as radiographic improvement, treatment failure rates, and amount of fluid drainage, are needed to inform clinical decisions.\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 difference in the proportion of patients of all ages who survived empyema in relation to surgical or non-surgical treatment. However, this finding was based on limited data: one study reported one death with each treatment option, and seven studies reported no deaths. There was no difference in rates of complications between patients treated with surgical or non-surgical options.\nThere was limited evidence to suggest that VATS reduced length of stay in hospital compared to non-surgical treatments." } ]
query-laysum	24111	[ { "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: \"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 up-to-date to July 2020." } ]
query-laysum	24112	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAnkle fractures, which usually occur after a twisting incident, are a diverse collection of injuries with different levels of complexity and severity. They have an incidence of 1 in 1000 a year in children. Treatment generally involves splints and casts for minor fractures and surgical fixation with screws, plates and pins followed by immobilisation for more serious fractures.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different interventions for treating ankle fractures in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (22 September 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September Week 2 2015), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (21 September 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 2015 Week 38), CINAHL (1937 to 22 September 2015), trial registers (17 February 2015), conference proceedings and reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions for treating ankle fractures in children.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full articles for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and collected data. We undertook no meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe included three randomised controlled trials reporting results for 189 children, all of whom had a clinical diagnosis of a \"low risk\" ankle fracture. These were predominantly classified as undisplaced Salter-Harris type I fractures of the distal fibula. All three trials compared non-surgical management options. The three trials were at high risk of bias, primarily relating to the impracticality of blinding participants and treating clinicians to the allocated interventions.\nTwo trials compared the Aircast Air-Stirrup ankle brace versus a rigid cast, which was a removable fibreglass posterior splint in one trial (trial A) and a below-knee fibreglass walking cast in the other trial (trial B). In trial A, both devices were removed at around two weeks. In trial B, removal of the brace was optional after five days, while the walking cast was removed after three weeks. There was low-quality evidence of clinically important differences in function scores at four weeks in favour of the brace groups of both trials. Function was measured using the Activities Scale for Kids-performance (ASKp; score range 0 to 100, higher scores mean better function) in trial A and using a modified version of the ASKp score (range 0 to 100%, higher percentages mean better function) in trial B. The results for trial A (40 participants) were median 91.9 in the brace group versus 84.2 in the splint group. The results for trial B (104 participants) were 91.3% versus 85.3%; mean difference (MD) 6.00% favouring brace (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38% to 10.62%). Trial B indicated that 5% amounted to a clinically relevant difference in the modified ASKp score. Neither trial reported on unacceptable anatomy or related outcomes or long-term follow-up. There was very low-quality evidence relating to adverse events, none of which were serious. Trial A found twice as many children with pressure-related complications in the brace group (10 of 20 versus 5 of 20). In contrast, trial B found four times as many children in the cast group had adverse outcomes assessed in terms of an unscheduled visit to a healthcare provider (4 of 54 versus 16 of 50). Both trials linked some of the adverse events in the brace group with the failure to wear a protective sock. There was very low-quality evidence indicating an earlier return to pre-injury activity in the brace groups in both trials. Trial B provided low-quality evidence that children much prefer five days or more wearing an ankle brace than three weeks immobilised in a walking ankle cast. There was moderate-quality evidence of a lack of difference between the two groups in pain at four weeks.\nThe third trial compared the Tubigrip bandage plus crutches and advice versus a plaster of Paris walking cast for two weeks and reported results at four weeks' follow-up for 45 children with an inversion injury of the ankle. The trial found very low-quality evidence of little difference in pain and function between the two groups, measured using a non-validated pain and function score at four weeks. The trial did not report on adverse effects. There was very low-quality evidence of an earlier return to normal activities, averaging six days, in children treated with Tubigrip (mean 14.17 days for Tubigrip versus 20.19 days for cast; MD -6.02 days, 95% CI -8.92 to -3.12 days).\nRecent evidence from magnetic resonance imaging studies of the main category of injury evaluated in these three trials suggests that most of the injuries in these trials were sprains or bone bruises rather than fractures of the distal fibular growth plate.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-quality evidence of a quicker recovery of self reported function at four weeks in children with clinically diagnosed low-risk ankle fractures who are treated with an ankle brace compared with those treated with a rigid cast, especially a non-removable walking cast. There is otherwise a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform clinical practice for children with ankle fractures. Research to identify and address priority questions on the treatment of these common fractures is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "A broken ankle, also called an ankle fracture, involves a break in one or more of the three bones that make up the ankle. It often results from a twisted ankle. Ankle fracture is a common injury in children. Some fractures are minor, and the bones remain in place. Other fractures are more serious, such as when the broken bones are displaced from each other or even come through the skin. These fractures can affect the way the bones grow. Serious disruption of the growth plates may result in leg deformity.\nMinor fractures are often treated by placing the injured leg in a removable fibreglass splint or a plaster cast. These devices may also be used for some displaced fractures after the displaced fracture parts have been put back into place. However, displaced fractures often require surgery. An operation enables the surgeon to put the broken bone pieces back into their correct places. Screws, plates and pins are typically used to hold the bones in place. The leg is usually placed in a plaster cast while the bones heal." } ]
query-laysum	24113	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nExcessive drinking is a significant cause of mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. Brief interventions aim to reduce alcohol consumption and related harm in hazardous and harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking help for alcohol problems. Interventions usually take the form of a conversation with a primary care provider and may include feedback on the person's alcohol use, information about potential harms and benefits of reducing intake, and advice on how to reduce consumption. Discussion informs the development of a personal plan to help reduce consumption. Brief interventions can also include behaviour change or motivationally-focused counselling.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in hazardous or harmful drinkers in general practice or emergency care settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and 12 other bibliographic databases to September 2017. We searched Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (to December 2003, after which the database was discontinued), trials registries, and websites. We carried out handsearching and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of brief interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people attending general practice, emergency care or other primary care settings for reasons other than alcohol treatment. The comparison group was no or minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. 'Brief intervention' was defined as a conversation comprising five or fewer sessions of brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling and a total duration of less than 60 minutes. Any more was considered an extended intervention. Digital interventions were not included in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We carried out subgroup analyses where possible to investigate the impact of factors such as gender, age, setting (general practice versus emergency care), treatment exposure and baseline consumption.\nMain results\nWe included 69 studies that randomised a total of 33,642 participants. Of these, 42 studies were added for this update (24,057 participants). Most interventions were delivered in general practice (38 studies, 55%) or emergency care (27 studies, 39%) settings. Most studies (61 studies, 88%) compared brief intervention to minimal or no intervention. Extended interventions were compared with brief (4 studies, 6%), minimal or no intervention (7 studies, 10%). Few studies targeted particular age groups: adolescents or young adults (6 studies, 9%) and older adults (4 studies, 6%). Mean baseline alcohol consumption was 244 g/week (30.5 standard UK units) among the studies that reported these data. Main sources of bias were attrition and lack of provider or participant blinding. The primary meta-analysis included 34 studies (15,197 participants) and provided moderate-quality evidence that participants who received brief intervention consumed less alcohol than minimal or no intervention participants after one year (mean difference (MD) -20 g/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) -28 to -12). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies (I² = 73%). A subgroup analysis by gender demonstrated that both men and women reduced alcohol consumption after receiving a brief intervention.\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that brief alcohol interventions have little impact on frequency of binges per week (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; 15 studies, 6946 participants); drinking days per week (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.04; 11 studies, 5469 participants); or drinking intensity (-0.2 g/drinking day, 95% CI -3.1 to 2.7; 10 studies, 3128 participants).\nWe found moderate-quality evidence of little difference in quantity of alcohol consumed when extended and no or minimal interventions were compared (-20 g/week, 95% CI -40 to 1; 6 studies, 1296 participants). There was little difference in binges per week (-0.08, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.12; 2 studies, 456 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or difference in days drinking per week (-0.45, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.09; 2 studies, 319 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Extended versus no or minimal intervention provided little impact on drinking intensity (9 g/drinking day, 95% CI -26 to 9; 1 study, 158 participants; low-quality evidence).\nExtended intervention had no greater impact than brief intervention on alcohol consumption, although findings were imprecise (MD 2 g/week, 95% CI -42 to 45; 3 studies, 552 participants; low-quality evidence). Numbers of binges were not reported for this comparison, but one trial suggested a possible drop in days drinking per week (-0.5, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.2; 147 participants; low-quality evidence). Results from this trial also suggested very little impact on drinking intensity (-1.7 g/drinking day, 95% CI -18.9 to 15.5; 147 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nOnly five studies reported adverse effects (very low-quality evidence). No participants experienced any adverse effects in two studies; one study reported that the intervention increased binge drinking for women and two studies reported adverse events related to driving outcomes but concluded they were equivalent in both study arms.\nSources of funding were reported by 67 studies (87%). With two exceptions, studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in hazardous and harmful drinkers compared to minimal or no intervention. Longer counselling duration probably has little additional effect. Future studies should focus on identifying the components of interventions which are most closely associated with effectiveness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included 69 controlled trials conducted in many countries. Most studies were conducted in general practice and emergency care. Study participants received brief intervention or usual care or written information about alcohol (control group).\nThe amount of alcohol people drank each week was reported by 34 trials (15,197 participants) at one-year follow-up and showed that people who received the brief intervention drank less than control group participants (moderate-quality evidence). The reduction was around a pint of beer (475 mL) or a third of a bottle of wine (250 mL) less each week.\nLonger counselling probably provided little additional benefit compared to brief intervention or no intervention.\nOne trial reported that the intervention adversely affected binge drinking for women, and two reported that no adverse effects resulted from receiving brief interventions. Most studies did not mention adverse effects." } ]
query-laysum	24114	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEndometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue (glands and stroma) outside the uterine cavity. This condition is oestrogen-dependent and thus is seen primarily during the reproductive years. Owing to their antiproliferative effects in the endometrium, progesterone receptor modulators (PRMs) have been advocated for treatment of endometriosis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of PRMs primarily in terms of pain relief as compared with other treatments or placebo or no treatment in women of reproductive age with endometriosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases, trial registers, and websites: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) platform, from inception to 28 November 2016. We handsearched reference lists of articles retrieved by the search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in all languages that examined effects of PRMs for treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes included measures of pain and side effects.\nMain results\nWe included 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 960 women. Two RCTs compared mifepristone versus placebo or versus a different dose of mifepristone, one RCT compared asoprisnil versus placebo, one compared ulipristal versus leuprolide acetate, and four compared gestrinone versus danazol, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, or a different dose of gestrinone. The quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods and high or unclear rates of attrition in most studies), very serious imprecision (associated with low event rates and wide confidence intervals), and indirectness (outcome assessed in a select subgroup of participants).\nMifepristone versus placebo\nOne study made this comparison and reported rates of painful symptoms among women who reported symptoms at baseline.\nAt three months, the mifepristone group had lower rates of dysmenorrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.17; one RCT, n =352; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 40% of women taking placebo experience dysmenorrhoea, then between 3% and 10% of women taking mifepristone will do so. The mifepristone group also had lower rates of dyspareunia (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.51; one RCT, n = 223; low-quality evidence). However, the mifepristone group had higher rates of side effects: Nearly 90% had amenorrhoea and 24% had hot flushes, although the placebo group reported only one event of each (1%) (high-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show differences in rates of nausea, vomiting, or fatigue, if present.\nMifepristone dose comparisons\nTwo studies compared doses of mifepristone and found insufficient evidence to show differences between different doses in terms of effectiveness or safety, if present. However, subgroup analysis of comparisons between mifepristone and placebo suggest that the 2.5 mg dose may be less effective than 5 mg or 10 mg for treating dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia.\nGestrinone comparisons\nOns study compared gestrinone with danazol, and another study compared gestrinone with leuprolin.\nEvidence was insufficient to show differences, if present, between gestrinone and danazol in rate of pain relief (those reporting no or mild pelvic pain) (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.56; two RCTs, n = 230; very low-quality evidence), dysmenorrhoea (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.33; two RCTs, n = 214; very low-quality evidence), or dyspareunia (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.86; two RCTs, n = 222; very low-quality evidence). The gestrinone group had a higher rate of hirsutism (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.60 to 4.32; two RCTs, n = 302; very low-quality evidence) and a lower rate of decreased breast size (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.98; two RCTs, n = 302; low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show differences between groups, if present, in rate of hot flushes (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.26; two RCTs, n = 302; very low-quality evidence) or acne (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.33; two RCTs, n = 302; low-quality evidence).\nWhen researchers compared gestrinone versus leuprolin through measurements on the 1 to 3 verbal rating scale (lower score denotes benefit), the mean dysmenorrhoea score was higher in the gestrinone group (MD 0.35 points, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58; one RCT, n = 55; low-quality evidence), but the mean dyspareunia score was lower in this group (MD 0.33 points, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.04; low-quality evidence). The gestrinone group had lower rates of amenorrhoea (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; one RCT, n = 49; low-quality evidence) and hot flushes (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; one study, n = 55; low quality evidence) but higher rates of spotting or bleeding (OR 22.92, 95% CI 2.64 to 198.66; one RCT, n = 49; low-quality evidence).\nEvidence was insufficient to show differences in effectiveness or safety between different doses of gestrinone, if present.\nAsoprisnil versus placebo\nOne study (n = 130) made this comparison but did not report data suitable for analysis.\nUlipristal versus leuprolide acetate\nOne study (n = 38) made this comparison but did not report data suitable for analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAmong women with endometriosis, moderate-quality evidence shows that mifepristone relieves dysmenorrhoea, and low-quality evidence suggests that this agent relieves dyspareunia, although amenorrhoea and hot flushes are common side effects. Data on dosage were inconclusive, although they suggest that the 2.5 mg dose of mifepristone may be less effective than higher doses. We found insufficient evidence to permit firm conclusions about the safety and effectiveness of other progesterone receptor modulators.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found 10 randomised controlled trials including 960 women; the evidence is current to November 2016." } ]
query-laysum	24115	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nTo assess the pharmacology of pravastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of pravastatin on the surrogate marker: low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol). The effect of pravastatin on morbidity and mortality is not the objective of this systematic review.\nSecondary objectives\n• To assess the dose-related effect and variability of effect of pravastatin on the following surrogate markers: total cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol); and triglycerides. \n• To assess the effect of pravastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2021: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Bireme LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pravastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered lipid data from placebo-controlled trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous data and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) data as dichotomous data. We searched for WDAEs information from all trials. We assessed all trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.\nMain results\nSixty-four RCTs evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pravastatin in 9771 participants. The participants were of any age, with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and pravastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over the doses of 5 mg to 160 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pravastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Pravastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 21.7% to 31.9%, total cholesterol by 16.1% to 23.3%,and triglycerides by 5.8% to 20.0%. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be moderate to high. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 4.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol. This represented a dose-response slope that was less than the other studied statins: atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. From other systematic reviews we conducted on statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pravastatin is similar to fluvastatin, but has a decreased effect compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. The effect of pravastatin compared to placebo on WADES has a risk ratio (RR) of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.03). The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPravastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with pravastatin because of the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 48.4% of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.\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": "• Pravastatin decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and the effect is dependent on the dose over the range of 5 mg to 160 mg.\n• Pravastatin at 80 mg/day is the maximal licensed dose.\n• From other systematic reviews we conducted, pravastatin has a similar effect on cholesterol to fluvastatin and has a lesser effect on cholesterol than the other statins." } ]
query-laysum	24116	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness, probably due to an autoimmune response, which should benefit from corticosteroid treatment. Non-randomised studies suggest that corticosteroids are beneficial. Two commonly used corticosteroids are prednisone and prednisolone. Both are usually given as oral tablets. Prednisone is converted into prednisolone in the liver so that the effect of the two drugs is usually the same. Another corticosteroid, dexamethasone, is more potent and is used in smaller doses. The review was first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015; we undertook this update to identify any new evidence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of corticosteroid treatment for CIDP compared to placebo or no treatment, and to compare the effects of different corticosteroid regimens.\nSearch methods\nOn 8 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised trials of corticosteroids for CIDP. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of treatment with any corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone for CIDP, diagnosed by an internationally accepted definition.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias independently. The intended primary outcome was change in disability, with change in impairment after 12 weeks and side effects as secondary outcomes. We assessed strength of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOne non-blinded RCT comparing prednisone with no treatment in 35 eligible participants did not measure the primary outcome for this systematic review. The trial had a high risk of bias. Neuropathy Impairment Scale scores after 12 weeks improved in 12 of 19 participants randomised to prednisone, compared with five of 16 participants randomised to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) for improvement 2.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 4.52; very low-quality evidence). The trial did not report side effects in detail, but one prednisone-treated participant died.\nA double-blind RCT comparing daily standard-dose oral prednisolone with monthly high-dose oral dexamethasone in 40 participants reported none of the prespecified outcomes for this review. The trial had a low risk of bias, but the quality of evidence was limited as it came from a single small study. There was little or no difference in number of participants who achieved remission (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45 in favour of monthly dexamethasone; moderate-quality evidence), or change in disability or impairment after one year (low-quality evidence). Change of grip strength or Medical Research Council (MRC) scores demonstrated little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality to low-quality evidence). Eight of 16 people in the prednisolone group and seven of 24 people in the dexamethasone group deteriorated. Side effects were similar with each regimen, except that sleeplessness was less common with monthly dexamethasone (low-quality evidence) as was moon facies (moon-shaped appearance of the face) (moderate-quality evidence).\nExperience from large non-randomised studies suggests that corticosteroids are beneficial, but long-term use causes serious side effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain about the effects of oral prednisone compared with no treatment, because the quality of evidence from the only RCT that exists is very low. Nevertheless, corticosteroids are commonly used in practice, supported by very low-quality evidence from observational studies. We also know from observational studies that corticosteroids carry the long-term risk of serious side effects. The efficacy of high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone is probably little different from that of daily standard-dose oral prednisolone. Most side effects occurred with similar frequencies in both groups, but with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone moon facies is probably less common and sleeplessness may be less common than with oral prednisolone. We need further research to identify factors that predict response.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is up to date to 8 November 2016." } ]
query-laysum	24117	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNeuropsychiatric involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is complex and it is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Management of nervous system manifestations of SLE remains unsatisfactory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000 and previously updated in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone in the treatment of neuropsychiatric manifestations of SLE.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS and WHO up to and including June 2012. We sought additional articles through handsearching in relevant journals as well as contact with experts. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials that compared cyclophosphamide to methylprednisolone in patients with SLE of any age and gender and presenting with any kind of neuropsychiatric manifestations.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted, assessed and cross-checked data. We produced a 'Summary of findings' table. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nWe did not include any new trials in this update. One randomised controlled trial of 32 patients is included. Concerning risk of bias, generation of the allocation sequence was at low risk; however, allocation concealment, blinding and selective reporting were at high risk. Treatment response, defined as 20% improvement from basal conditions by clinical, serological and specific neurological measures, was found in 94.7% (18/19) of patients using cyclophosphamide compared with 46.2% (6/13) in the methylprednisolone group at 24 months (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.73). This was statistically significant and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of treatment response is three. We found no statistically significant differences between the groups in damage index measurements (Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)). The median SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) rating favoured the cyclophosphamide group. Cyclophosphamide use was associated with a reduction in prednisone requirements. All the patients in the cyclophosphamide group had electroencephalographic improvement but there was no statistically significant difference in decrease between groups in the number of monthly seizures. No statistically significant differences in adverse effects, including mortality, were reported between the groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review found one randomised controlled trial with a small number of patients in the different clinical subgroups of neurological manifestation. There is very low-quality evidence that cyclophosphamide is more effective in reducing symptoms of neuropsychiatric involvement in SLE compared with methylprednisolone. However, properly designed randomised controlled trials that involve large numbers of individuals, with explicit clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria, sufficient duration of follow-up and description of all relevant outcome measures, are necessary to guide practice. As we did not find any new trials to include in this review at update, the conclusions of the review did not change.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Their findings are summarised below\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In people with central nervous system lupus:\n- We are uncertain whether cyclophosphamide improves signs and symptoms or disease activity compared to methylprednisolone.\n- No differences between the two groups were found in tissue or organ damage, or in the number of monthly seizures, but this may have happened by chance.\n- After six months of treatment, people who took cyclophosphamide took fewer prednisone pills than people who took methylprednisolone.\n- And at the end of two years, more people who took cyclophosphamide stayed on their treatment than people who took methylprednisolone.\nWe often do not have precise information about side effects and complications. This is particularly true for rare but serious side effects. Side effects, such as infections, high blood sugar and high blood pressure, pancreas problems and death occurred about the same amount in people who took cyclophosphamide or methylprednisolone." } ]
query-laysum	24118	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFaecal incontinence (FI) and constipation are both socially-embarrassing and physically-disabling conditions that impair quality of life. For both, surgery may be required in a minority of people when more conservative measures fail. However, the invasiveness and irreversible nature of direct surgery on bowel and sphincter muscles, poor long-term outcomes and well-established compIications makes such procedures unappealing for these benign conditions. A less-invasive surgical option to treat faecal incontinence and constipation is direct, low-voltage stimulation of the sacral nerve roots, termed sacral nerve stimulation (SNS). SNS has become the first line surgical treatment for FI in people failing conservative therapies. Its value in the treatment of constipation is less clear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of sacral nerve stimulation using implanted electrodes for the treatment of faecal incontinence and constipation in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP and handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 5 February 2015), EMBASE (1 January 1947 to 2015 Week 5), and the reference lists of retrieved relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised trials assessing the effects of SNS for faecal incontinence or constipation in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results, assessed the methodological quality of the included trials, and undertook data extraction.\nMain results\nSix crossover trials and two parallel group trials were included.\nSix trials assessed the effects of SNS for FI. In the parallel group trial conducted by Tjandra, 53 participants with severe FI in the SNS group experienced fewer episodes of faecal incontinence compared to the control group who received optimal medical therapy (mean difference (MD) −5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) −9.15 to −1.25 at 3 months; MD −6.30, 95% CI −10.34 to −2.26 at 12 months). Adverse events were reported in a proportion of participants: pain at implant site (6%), seroma (2%) and excessive tingling in the vaginal region (9%).\nIn the parallel group trial carried out by Thin, 15 participants with FI in the SNS group experienced fewer episodes of FI compared with the percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) group (MD −3.00, 95% CI −6.61 to 0.61 at 3 months; MD −3.20, 95% CI −7.14 to 0.74 at 12 months). Adverse events were reported in three participants: mild ipsilateral leg pain during temporary testing (n = 1); and stimulator-site pain following insertion of neurostimulator (n = 2).\nIn the crossover trial by Leroi 7 of 34 recruited participants were excluded from the crossover due mainly to complications or immediate device failure. Twenty-four of the remaining 27 participants while still blinded chose the period of stimulation they had preferred. Outcomes were reported separately for 19 participants who preferred the 'on' and five who preferred the 'off' period. For the group of 19, the median (range) episodes of faecal incontinence per week fell from 1.7 (0 to 9) during the 'off' period to 0.7 (0 to 5) during the 'on' period; for the group of five, however, the median (range) rose from 1.7 (0 to 11) during the 'off' period compared with 3.7 (0 to 11) during the 'on' period. Four of 27 participants experienced an adverse event resulting in removal of the stimulator.\nIn the crossover trial by Sørensen and colleagues, participants did not experience any FI episodes in either the one-week ‘on’ or ‘off’ periods.\nIn the crossover trial by Vaizey, participants reported an average of six, and one, episodes of faecal incontinence per week during the 'off' and 'on' periods respectively in two participants with FI. Neither study reported adverse events.\nIn the crossover trial by Kahlke, 14 participants with FI experienced significantly lower episodes of FI per week during the stimulator 'on' (1 (SD, 1.7)) compared with the 'off' period (8.4 (SD, 8.7)). Adverse events reported include: haematoma formation (n = 3); misplacement of tined lead (1); and pain at stimulator site (n = 1).\nTwo trials assessed SNS for constipation. In the Kenefick trial, the two participants experienced an average of two bowel movements per week during the 'off' crossover period, compared with five during the 'on' period. Abdominal pain and bloating occurred 79% of the time during the 'off' period compared with 33% during the 'on' period. No adverse events occurred. In contrast, in the trial by Dinning with 59 participants, SNS did not improve frequency of bowel movements and 73 adverse events were reported, which included pain at site of the implanted pulse generator (32), wound infection (12), and urological (17) events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe limited evidence from the included trials suggests that SNS can improve continence in a proportion of patients with faecal incontinence. However, SNS did not improve symptoms in patients with constipation. In addition, adverse events occurred in some patients where these were reported. Rigorous high quality randomised trials are needed to allow the effects of SNS for these conditions to be assessed with more certainty.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"SNS for faecal incontinence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In the two 'parallel group' trials, 53 and 15 participants with faecal incontinence who were in the SNS group experienced fewer episodes of faecal incontinence compared to the control group at 3 and 12 months. In the first crossover trial, 24 participants who completed the trial chose the period of stimulation they had preferred while still unaware whether this was 'on' or 'off'. Nineteen participants who preferred the 'on' period experienced 59% fewer episodes of FI per week during the 'on' period, and 5 participants who preferred the 'off' period experienced 118% more episodes of FI per week. In the second crossover trial, the participants did not experience episodes of FI during either the 'on' or the 'off' periods. In the third trial, participants experienced 83% fewer episodes of faecal incontinence during the 'on' compared with the 'off' period. In the fourth crossover trial participants experienced 88% fewer episodes of faecal incontinence during the 'on' period compared with the 'off' period." } ]
query-laysum	24119	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRecognition is growing that social anxiety disorder (SAnD) is a chronic and disabling disorder, and data from early trials demonstrate that medication may be effective in its treatment. This systematic review is an update of an earlier review of pharmacotherapy of SAnD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacotherapy for social anxiety disorder in adults and identify which factors (methodological or clinical) predict response to treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR-Studies and CCMDCTR-References) to 17 August 2015. The CCMDCTR contains reports of relevant RCTs from MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-), PsycINFO (1967-) and CENTRAL (all years). We scanned the reference lists of articles for additional studies. We updated the search in August 2017 and placed additional studies in Awaiting Classification, these will be incorporated in the next version of the review, as appropriate.\nSelection criteria\nWe restricted studies to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy versus placebo in the treatment of SAnD in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors (TW and JI) assessed trials for eligibility and inclusion for this review update. We extracted descriptive, methodological and outcome information from each trial, contacting investigators for missing information where necessary. We calculated summary statistics for continuous and dichotomous variables (if provided) and undertook subgroup and sensitivity analyses.\nMain results\nWe included 66 RCTs in the review (> 24 weeks; 11,597 participants; age range 18 to 70 years) and 63 in the meta-analysis. For the primary outcome of treatment response, we found very low-quality evidence of treatment response for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo (number of studies (k) = 24, risk ratio (RR) 1.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48 to 1.85, N = 4984). On this outcome there was also evidence of benefit for monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) (k = 4, RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.75, N = 235), reversible inhibitors of monoamine oxidase A (RIMAs) (k = 8, RR 1.83; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.55, N = 1270), and the benzodiazepines (k = 2, RR 4.03; 95% CI 2.45 to 6.65, N = 132), although the evidence was low quality. We also found clinical response for the anticonvulsants with gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) analogues (k = 3, RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.20, N = 532; moderate-quality evidence). The SSRIs were the only medication proving effective in reducing relapse based on moderate-quality evidence. We assessed the SSRIs and the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine on the basis of treatment withdrawal; this was higher for medication than placebo (SSRIs: k = 24, RR 2.59; 95% CI 1.97 to 3.39, N = 5131, low-quality evidence; venlafaxine: k = 4, RR 3.23; 95% CI 2.15 to 4.86, N = 1213, moderate-quality evidence), but there were low absolute rates of withdrawal for both these medications classes compared to placebo. We did not find evidence of a benefit for the rest of the medications compared to placebo.\nFor the secondary outcome of SAnD symptom severity, there was benefit for the SSRIs, the SNRI venlafaxine, MAOIs, RIMAs, benzodiazepines, the antipsychotic olanzapine, and the noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) atomoxetine in the reduction of SAnD symptoms, but most of the evidence was of very low quality. Treatment with SSRIs and RIMAs was also associated with a reduction in depression symptoms. The SSRIs were the only medication class that demonstrated evidence of reduction in disability across a number of domains.\nWe observed a response to long-term treatment with medication for the SSRIs (low-quality evidence), for the MAOIs (very low-quality evidence) and for the RIMAs (moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found evidence of treatment efficacy for the SSRIs, but it is based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence. Tolerability of SSRIs was lower than placebo, but absolute withdrawal rates were low.\nWhile a small number of trials did report treatment efficacy for benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, MAOIs, and RIMAs, readers should consider this finding in the context of potential for abuse or unfavourable side effects.\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": "Individuals with SAnD often experience intense fear, avoidance, and distress in unfamiliar social situations. There is evidence that medications are useful in minimising these symptoms." } ]
query-laysum	24120	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the original review published in 2007.\nCarcinoma of the rectum is a common malignancy, especially in high income countries. Local recurrence may occur after surgery alone. Preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) has the potential to reduce the risk of local recurrence and improve outcomes in rectal cancer.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of preoperative radiotherapy for people with localised resectable rectal cancer compared to surgery alone.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; Issue 5, 2018) (4 June 2018), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to 4 June 2018), and Embase (Ovid) (1974 to 4 June 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for relevant ongoing trials (4 June 2018).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing PRT and surgery with surgery alone for people with localised advanced rectal cancer planned for radical surgery. We excluded trials that did not use contemporary radiotherapy techniques (with more than two fields to the pelvis).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the 'Risk of bias' domains for each included trial, and extracted data. For time-to-event data, we calculated the Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) and variances, and for dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) using the random-effects method. Potential sources of heterogeneity hypothesised a priori included study quality, staging, and the use of total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery.\nMain results\nWe included four trials with a total of 4663 participants. All four trials reported short PRT courses, with three trials using 25 Gy in five fractions, and one trial using 20 Gy in four fractions. Only one study specifically required TME surgery for inclusion, whereas in another study 90% of participants received TME surgery.\nPreoperative radiotherapy probably reduces overall mortality at 4 to 12 years' follow-up (4 trials, 4663 participants; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98; moderate-quality evidence). For every 1000 people who undergo surgery alone, 454 would die compared with 45 fewer (the true effect may lie between 77 fewer to 9 fewer) in the PRT group. There was some evidence from subgroup analyses that in trials using TME no or little effect of PRT on survival (P = 0.03 for the difference between subgroups).\nPreoperative radiotherapy may have little or no effect in reducing cause-specific mortality for rectal cancer (2 trials, 2145 participants; Peto OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; low-quality evidence).\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that PRT reduces local recurrence (4 trials, 4663 participants; Peto OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57). In absolute terms, 161 out of 1000 patients receiving surgery alone would experience local recurrence compared with 83 fewer with PRT. The results were consistent in TME and non-TME studies.\nThere may be little or no difference in curative resection (4 trials, 4673 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; low-quality evidence) or in the need for sphincter-sparing surgery (3 trials, 4379 participants; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) between PRT and surgery alone.\nLow-quality evidence suggests that PRT may increase the risk of sepsis from 13% to 16% (2 trials, 2698 participants; RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.52) and surgical complications from 25% to 30% (2 trials, 2698 participants; RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42) compared to surgery alone.\nTwo trials evaluated quality of life using different scales. Both studies concluded that sexual dysfunction occurred more in the PRT group. Mixed results were found for faecal incontinence, and irradiated participants tended to resume work later than non-irradiated participants between 6 and 12 months, but this effect had attenuated after 18 months (low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that PRT reduces overall mortality. Subgroup analysis did not confirm this effect in people undergoing TME surgery. We found consistent evidence that PRT reduces local recurrence. Risk of sepsis and postsurgical complications may be higher with PRT.\nThe main limitation of the findings of the present review concerns their applicability. The included trials only assessed short-course radiotherapy and did not use chemotherapy, which is widely used in the contemporary management of rectal cancer disease. The differences between the trials regarding the criteria used to define rectal cancer, staging, radiotherapy delivered, the time between radiotherapy and surgery, and the use of adjuvant or postoperative therapy did not appear to influence the size of effect across the studies.\nFuture trials should focus on identifying participants that are most likely to benefit from PRT especially in terms of improving local control, sphincter preservation, and overall survival while reducing acute and late toxicities (especially rectal and sexual function), as well as determining the effect of radiotherapy when chemotherapy is used and the optimal timing of surgery following radiotherapy.\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 studies were well-designed. We judged the quality of the evidence as moderate for cancer recurrence and overall mortality, as there were serious concerns regarding the applicability of the findings to the contemporary management of rectal cancer.\nWe further downgraded the quality of the evidence for the remaining outcomes due to imprecise results and/or variations between the trials regarding the criteria used to define rectal cancer, the stage of participants, preoperative imaging used for assessing stage, the type of surgery performed, the radiation dose and fractioning, the time between radiotherapy and surgery, and the use of adjuvant or postoperative therapy." } ]
query-laysum	24121	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDornase alfa is currently used as a mucolytic to treat pulmonary disease (the major cause of morbidity and mortality) in cystic fibrosis. It reduces mucus viscosity in the lungs, promoting improved clearance of secretions. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether the use of dornase alfa in cystic fibrosis is associated with improved mortality and morbidity compared to placebo or other medications that improve airway clearance, and to identify any adverse events associated with its use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Register: 12 October 2020.\nClinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. Date of most recent search: 08 February 2021.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing dornase alfa to placebo, standard therapy or other medications that improve airway clearance.\nData collection and analysis\nAuthors independently assessed trials against the inclusion criteria; two authors carried out analysis of methodological quality and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the level of evidence.\nMain results\nThe searches identified 74 trials, of which 19 (2565 participants) met our inclusion criteria. 15 trials compared dornase alfa to placebo or no dornase alfa (2447 participants); two compared daily dornase to hypertonic saline (32 participants); one compared daily dornase alfa to hypertonic saline and alternate day dornase alfa (48 participants); one compared dornase alfa to mannitol and the combination of both drugs (38 participants). Trial duration varied from six days to three years.\nDornase alfa compared to placebo or no treatment\nDornase alfa probably improved forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) at one month (four trials, 248 participants), three months (one trial, 320 participants; moderate-quality evidence), six months (one trial, 647 participants; high-quality evidence) and two years (one trial, 410 participants). Limited low-quality evidence showed treatment may make little or no difference in quality of life. Dornase alfa probably reduced the number of pulmonary exacerbations in trials of up to two years (moderate-quality evidence). One trial that examined the cost of care, including the cost of dornase alfa, found that the cost savings from dornase alfa offset 18% to 38% of the medication costs.\nDornase alfa: daily versus alternate day\nOne cross-over trial (43 children) found little or no difference between treatment regimens for lung function, quality of life or pulmonary exacerbations (low-quality evidence).\nDornase alfa compared to other medications that improve airway clearance\nResults for these comparisons were mixed. One trial (43 children) showed dornase alfa may lead to a greater improvement in FEV1 compared to hypertonic saline (low-quality evidence), and one trial (23 participants) reported little or no differences in lung function between dornase alfa and mannitol or dornase alfa and dornase alfa plus mannitol (low-quality evidence). One trial (23 participants) found dornase alfa may improve quality of life compared to dornase alfa plus mannitol (low-quality evidence); other comparisons found little or no difference in this outcome (low-quality evidence). No trials in any comparison reported any difference between groups in the number of pulmonary exacerbations (low-quality evidence).\nWhen all comparisons are assessed, dornase alfa did not cause significantly more adverse effects than other treatments, except voice alteration and rash.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence to show that, compared with placebo, therapy with dornase alfa may improve lung function in people with cystic fibrosis in trials lasting from one month to two years. There was a decrease in pulmonary exacerbations in trials of six months or longer, probably due to treatment. Voice alteration and rash appear to be the only adverse events reported with increased frequency in randomised controlled trials. There is not enough evidence to firmly conclude if dornase alfa is superior to other hyperosmolar agents in improving lung function.\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: 12 October 2020." } ]
query-laysum	24122	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEpilepsy is a central nervous system disorder (neurological disorder). Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical nerve cell electrical activity in the brain. Despite the development of more than 10 new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) since the early 2000s, approximately a third of people with epilepsy remain resistant to pharmacotherapy, often requiring treatment with a combination of AEDs. In this review, we summarised the current evidence regarding rufinamide, a novel anticonvulsant medication, which, as a triazole derivative, is structurally unrelated to any other currently used anticonvulsant medication when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. In January 2009, rufinamide was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of children four years of age and older with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. It is also approved as an add-on treatment for adults and adolescents with focal seizures.\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy.\nSearch methods\nWe imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of rufinamide and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of rufinamide, recruiting people (of any age or gender) with drug-resistant epilepsy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome); seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; and adverse effects (secondary outcomes). Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT) and we presented summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThe review included six trials, representing 1759 participants. Four trials (1563 participants) included people with uncontrolled focal seizures. Two trials (196 participants) included individuals with established Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Overall, the age of adults ranged from 18 to 80 years and the age of children ranged from 4 to 16 years. Baseline phases ranged from 28 to 56 days and double-blind phases from 84 to 96 days. Five of the six included trials described adequate methods of concealment of randomisation, and only three described adequate blinding. All analyses were by ITT. Overall, five studies were at low risk of bias and one had unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturer of rufinamide and therefore were at high risk of funding bias.\nThe overall RR for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.79 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.22; 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), indicating that rufinamide (plus conventional AED) was significantly more effective than placebo (plus conventional AED) in reducing seizure frequency by at least 50% when added to conventionally used AEDs in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Data from only one study (73 participants) reported seizure freedom: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.36 to 4.86; 1 RCT, 73 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason and due to AED) was 1.83 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.31; 6 RCTs, 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that rufinamide was significantly more likely to be withdrawn than placebo. Most adverse effects were significantly more likely to occur in the rufinamide-treated group. Adverse events significantly associated with rufinamide were headache, dizziness, somnolence, vomiting, nausea, fatigue, and diplopia. The RRs for these adverse effects were as follows: headache 1.36 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.69; 3 RCTs, 1228 participants; high-certainty evidence); dizziness 2.52 (95% Cl 1.90 to 3.34; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); somnolence 1.94 (95% Cl 1.44 to 2.61; 6 RCTs, 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); vomiting 2.95 (95% Cl 1.80 to 4.82; 4 RCTs, 777 participants; low-certainty evidence); nausea 1.87 (95% Cl 1.33 to 2.64; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); fatigue 1.46 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.97; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and diplopia 4.60 (95% Cl 2.53 to 8.38; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no important heterogeneity between studies for any outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate to low certainty due to wide CIs and potential risk of bias from some studies contributing to the analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment was effective in reducing seizure frequency. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for long-term use of rufinamide. In the short term, rufinamide as an add-on was associated with several adverse events. This review focused on the use of rufinamide in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of rufinamide when used as monotherapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that investigated the use of rufinamide as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy.\nWe looked for randomised controlled studies, in which the treatments people received were decided at random, because these studies usually give the most reliable evidence about the effects of a treatment. We assessed the evidence we found by looking at how the studies were conducted, the study sizes, and whether their findings were consistent." } ]
query-laysum	24123	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeritoneal dialysis (PD) relies on the optimal functionality of the flexible plastic PD catheter present within the peritoneal cavity to enable effective treatment. As a result of limited evidence, it is uncertain if the PD catheter's insertion method influences the rate of catheter dysfunction and, thus, the quality of dialysis therapy. Numerous variations of four basic techniques have been adopted in an attempt to improve and maintain PD catheter function. This review evaluates the association between PD catheter insertion technique and associated differences in PD catheter function and post-PD catheter insertion complications\nObjectives\nOur aims were to 1) evaluate if a specific technique used for PD catheter insertion has lower rates of PD catheter dysfunction (early and late) and technique failure; and 2) examine if any of the available techniques results in a reduction in post-procedure complication rates including postoperative haemorrhage, exit-site infection and peritonitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 24 November 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining adults and children undergoing PD catheter insertion. The studies examined any two PD catheter insertion techniques, including laparoscopic, open-surgical, percutaneous and peritoneoscopic insertion. Primary outcomes of interest were PD catheter function and technique survival.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias for all included studies. Main outcomes in the Summary of Findings tables include primary outcomes - early PD catheter function, long-term PD catheter function, technique failure and postoperative complications. A random effects model was used to perform meta-analyses; risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) were calculated for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.\nMain results\nSeventeen studies were included in this review. Nine studies were suitable for inclusion in quantitative meta-analysis (670 randomised participants). Five studies compared laparoscopic with open PD catheter insertion, and four studies compared a 'medical' insertion technique with open surgical PD catheter insertion: percutaneous (2) and peritoneoscopic (2).\nRandom sequence generation was judged to be at low risk of bias in eight studies. Allocation concealment was reported poorly, with only five studies judged to be at low risk of selection bias. Performance bias was judged to be high risk in 10 studies. Attrition bias and reporting bias were judged to be low in 14 and 12 studies, respectively.\nSix studies compared laparoscopic PD catheter insertion with open surgical insertion. Five studies could be meta-analysed (394 participants). For our primary outcomes, data were either not reported in a format that could be meta-analysed (early PD catheter function, long-term catheter function) or not reported at all (technique failure). One death was reported in the laparoscopic group and none in the open surgical group. In low certainty evidence, laparoscopic PD catheter insertion may make little or no difference to the risk of peritonitis (4 studies, 288 participants: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.48; I² = 7%), PD catheter removal (4 studies, 257 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.64; I² = 0%), and dialysate leakage (4 studies, 330 participants: RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.49 to 4.02; I² = 0%), but may reduce the risk of haemorrhage (2 studies, 167 participants: RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.28 to 10.31; I² = 33%) and catheter tip migration (4 studies, 333 participants: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.92; I² = 12%).\nFour studies compared a medical insertion technique with open surgical insertion (276 participants). Technique failure was not reported, and no deaths were reported (2 studies, 64 participants). In low certainty evidence, medical insertion may make little or no difference to early PD catheter function (3 studies, 212 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.83; I² = 0%), while one study reported long-term PD function may improve with peritoneoscopic insertion (116 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.92). Peritoneoscopic catheter insertion may reduce the episodes of early peritonitis (2 studies, 177 participants: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.71; I² = 0%) and dialysate leakage (2 studies, 177 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.71; I² = 0%). Medical insertion had uncertain effects on catheter tip migration (2 studies, 90 participants: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.73; I² = 0%).\nMost of the studies examined were small and of poor quality, increasing the risk of imprecision. There was also a significant risk of bias therefore cautious interpretation of results is advised.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available studies show that the evidence needed to guide clinicians in developing their PD catheter insertion service is lacking. No PD catheter insertion technique had lower rates of PD catheter dysfunction. High-quality, evidence-based data are urgently required, utilising multi-centre RCTs or large cohort studies, in order to provide definitive guidance relating to PD catheter insertion modality.\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": "Peritoneal dialysis (PD) relies on the insertion of a flexible plastic catheter, which is passed into the peritoneal cavity (space around the abdominal organs) to provide dialysis treatment. This tube must be able to allow the circulation of sterile fluid in and out of the peritoneal cavity several times each day (or overnight) to provide optimum clearance of waste products and water. The technique used to initially place the PD catheter into the peritoneal cavity varies from centre to centre according to local preference and expertise, and hence it is not clear which catheter insertion technique provides the best clinical outcomes for the patient in terms of catheter function, longevity whilst minimising postoperative complications." } ]
query-laysum	24124	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is caused by degeneration of the joint cartilage and growth of new bone, cartilage and connective tissue. It is often associated with major disability and impaired quality of life. There is currently no consensus on the best treatment to improve OA symptoms. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID).\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical benefits (pain, function, quality of life) and safety (withdrawals due to adverse effects, serious adverse effects, overall discontinuation rates) of celecoxib in osteoarthritis (OA).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 11, 2017, as well as reference and citation lists of included studies. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of published articles were contacted.\nSelection criteria\nWe included published studies (full reports in a peer reviewed journal) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib versus no intervention, placebo or another traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in participants with clinically- or radiologically-confirmed primary OA of the knee or hip, or both knee and hip.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently performed data extraction, quality assessment, and compared results. Main analyses for patient-reported outcomes of pain and physical function were conducted on studies with low risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel.\nMain results\nWe included 36 trials that provided data for 17,206 adults: 9402 participants received celecoxib 200 mg/day, and 7804 were assigned to receive either tNSAIDs (N = 1869) or placebo (N = 5935). Celecoxib was compared with placebo (32 trials), naproxen (6 trials) and diclofenac (3 trials). Studies were published between 1999 and 2014. Studies included participants with knee, hip or both knee and hip OA; mean OA duration was 7.9 years. Most studies included predominantly white participants whose mean age was 62 (± 10) years; most participants were women. There were no concerns about risk of bias for performance and detection bias, but selection bias was poorly reported in most trials. Most trials had high attrition bias, and there was evidence of selective reporting in a third of the studies.\nCelecoxib versus placebo\nCompared with placebo celecoxib slightly reduced pain on a 500-point Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale, accounting for 3% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 5% improvement) or 12% relative improvement (95% CI 7% to 18% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).\nCompared with placebo celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 1700-point WOMAC scale, accounting for 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 6% improvement), 12% relative improvement (95% CI 5% to 19% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).\nThere was no evidence of an important difference for withdrawals due to adverse events (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.15) (moderate quality evidence due to study limitations).\nResults were inconclusive for numbers of participants experiencing any serious AEs (SAEs) (Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.36), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 1.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 14.90) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 3.40, 95% CI 0.73 to 15.88) (very low quality evidence due to serious imprecision and study limitations). However, regulatory agencies have warned of increased cardiovascular events for celecoxib.\nCelecoxib versus tNSAIDs\nThere were inconclusive results regarding the effect on pain between celecoxib and tNSAIDs on a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS), showing 5% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 2% worse), 11% relative improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worse) (2 studies, 1180 participants, moderate quality evidence due to publication bias).\nCompared to a tNSAID celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 100-point WOMAC scale, showing 6% absolute improvement (95% CI 6% to 11% improvement) and 16% relative improvement (95% CI 2% to 30% improvement). This improvement may not be clinically significant (low quality evidence due to missing data and few participants) (1 study, 264 participants).\nBased on low or very low quality evidence (downgraded due to missing data, high risk of bias, few events and wide confidence intervals) results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to AEs (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27), number of participants experiencing SAEs (Peto OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.28), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 0.61, 0.15 to 2.43) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.25).\nIn comparisons of celecoxib and placebo there were no differences in pooled analyses between our main analysis with low risk of bias and all eligible studies. In comparisons of celecoxib and tNSAIDs, only one outcome showed a difference between studies at low risk of bias and all eligible studies: physical function (6% absolute improvement in low risk of bias, no difference in all eligible studies).\nNo studies included in the main comparisons measured quality of life. Of 36 studies, 34 reported funding by drug manufacturers and in 34 studies one or more study authors were employees of the sponsor.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are highly reserved about results due to pharmaceutical industry involvement and limited data. We were unable to obtain data from three studies, which included 15,539 participants, and classified as awaiting assessment. Current evidence indicates that celecoxib is slightly better than placebo and some tNSAIDs in reducing pain and improving physical function. We are uncertain if harms differ among celecoxib and placebo or tNSAIDs due to risk of bias, low quality evidence for many outcomes, and that some study authors and Pfizer declined to provide data from completed studies with large numbers of participants. To fill the evidence gap, we need to access existing data and new, independent clinical trials to investigate benefits and harms of celecoxib versus tNSAIDs for people with osteoarthritis, with longer follow-up and more direct head-to-head comparisons with other tNSAIDs.\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": "Celecoxib, compared with placebo, slightly reduced pain, improved physical function, and probably did not increase numbers of people who withdrew from trials because of problems with the treatment. However, these results were unlikely to be clinically significant. Very low quality evidence meant that we are uncertain if celecoxib caused harms, such as gut or heart problems when compared with placebo. However, drug regulatory agencies have warned of increased risk of heart problems with celecoxib.\nCelecoxib and tNSAIDs reduced pain by the same amount; celecoxib slightly improved physical function compared with tNSAIDs. Evidence comparing celecoxib and tNSAIDs was low to very low quality, so it is uncertain if harms (such as heart or gut problems) occurred from taking these drugs.\nNone of the high-quality studies assessed quality of life." } ]
query-laysum	24125	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHuman milk banking has been available in many countries for the last three decades. The milk provided from milk banking is predominantly term breast milk, but some milk banks provide preterm breast milk. There are a number of differences between donor term and donor preterm human milk.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of banked donor preterm milk compared with banked donor term milk regarding growth and developmental outcomes in very low birth weight infants (infants weighing less than 1500 grams).\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 23 October 2018), Embase (1980 to 23 October 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 23 October 2018). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing banked donor preterm milk with banked donor term milk regarding growth and developmental outcomes in very low birth weight infants\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to perform assessment of methodology regarding blinding of randomisation, intervention and outcome measurements as well as completeness of follow-up. We planned to evaluate treatment effect using a fixed-effect model using relative risk (RR), relative risk reduction, risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for categorical data; and using mean, standard deviation and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nNo studies met the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence to support or refute the effect of banked donor preterm milk compared to banked term milk regarding growth and developmental outcomes in very low birth weight infants.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We were unable to conclude that donor preterm milk was superior to term donor milk as there is no evidence to support or refute this question. However the lack of studies identified in the original review and now updated in this review means that it is extremely unlikely that any such study will be performed." } ]
query-laysum	24126	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHelicobacter pylori is estimated to affect about half the world's population and is considered as the main cause of chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer disease. Eradication of H. pylori infection accelerates ulcer healing and prevents relapse, reducing incidence of H. pylori-related gastric diseases. Numerous studies have provided evidence that the oral cavity could be a potential reservoir for H. pylori. The presence of oralH. pylori might affect the efficiency of eradication therapy and act as a causal force for its recurrence. Conversely, other investigators have indicated that the colonization and growth of H. pylori differs between the oral cavity and the stomach. Considering the open debate on the topic, it's necessary to clarify whether periodontal therapy is an effective adjunctive treatment for gastric H. pylori infection.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of periodontal therapy plus eradication therapy versus eradication therapy alone for gastric H. pylori infection. The secondary objective is to compare the non-recurrence rate at long-term follow up in different treatment groups.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015), EMBASE (1980 to August 2015), and the Chinese Biomedical Database (1978 to August 2015). We also searched both ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP portal in October 2015. We handsearched the reference lists of included studies to identify relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs comparing periodontal therapy plus eradication treatment with eradication treatment alone, regardless of language of publication.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers selected the trials that met the inclusion criteria and extracted the details of each study independently. The data were pooled using both fixed-effect and random-effects models and results calculated as odds ratios (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on an intention-to-treat analysis. However, because there was little difference in the results from these two models, we only reported the results from the fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included seven small RCTs involving 691 participants aged 17 to 78 years in our meta analyses. The primary result showed that periodontal therapy combined with H. pylori eradication treatment increased the eradication rate of gastric H. pylori compared with eradication treatment alone (OR 2.15; 95% CI 1.47 to 3.14; P < 0.0001) in people with H. pylori infection. In addition, periodontal therapy also had benefits on long-term gastric H. pylori eradication. After eradication of H. pylori, the non-recurrence rate of gastric H. pylori infection increased in participants treated with periodontal therapy compared with those who received eradication therapy alone (OR 3.60; 95% CI 2.11 to 6.15; P < 0.00001). According to the GRADE approach, the overall quality of the evidence was 'moderate' for eradication rate of gastric H.pylori and 'low' for non-recurrence rate of gastric H. pylori.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, periodontal therapy could increase the efficiency of H. pylori eradication and the non-recurrence rate of gastricH. pylori. In view of the limited number and quality of included studies, it will be necessary to conduct more well-designed, multicenter, and large-scale RCTs to determine the effects of periodontal therapy in eradicating gastric H. pylori and suppressing the recurrence of this bacterium in the stomach.\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": "After searching for all relevant studies to August 2015, we found seven small randomized controlled trials (considered the highest quality study design) involving 691 participants aged 17 to 78 years." } ]
query-laysum	24127	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm, the sixth most common cancer worldwide, and the third most common cause of cancer mortality. Moreover, its incidence has increased dramatically in the past decade. While surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only around 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these therapies. Current treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include various ablative and transarterial therapies in addition to the drug sorafenib.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of external beam radiotherapy in the management of localised unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and clinicaltrials.gov registry. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually for further related articles (cross-references) up to October 6, 2016.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies included all randomised clinical trials comparing external beam radiotherapy either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used a random-effects model as well as a fixed-effect model meta-analysis but in case of discrepancy between the two models (e.g. one giving a significant intervention effect, the other no significant intervention effect), we reported both results; otherwise, we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using predefined risk of bias domains; assessed risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis; and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE.\nMain results\nNine randomised clinical trials with 879 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as low to very low quality. All of the included trials compared combined external beam radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma; moreover, three of the trials compared external beam radiotherapy alone versus chemoembolisation alone. All trials were conducted in China. The median age in most of the included trials was around 52 years, and most trial participants were male. The median follow-up duration ranged from one to three years. None of the trials reported data on cancer-related mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, or time to progression of the tumour. For the comparison of radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 0.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.62; P < 0.001; 9 trials; low-quality evidence); for complete response rate was 2.14 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.13; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence); and for overall response rate defined as complete response plus partial response was 1.58 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.78; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence), all in favour of combined treatment with external beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation and seemingly supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis. Additionally, the combined treatment was associated with a higher risk of elevated total bilirubin and elevated alanine aminotransferase. The risk ratio for the risk of elevated alanine aminotransferase was 1.41 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.84; P = 0.01; very low-quality evidence), while for elevated total bilirubin it was 2.69 (95% CI 1.34 to 5.40; P = 0.005; very low-quality evidence). For the comparison of radiotherapy versus chemoembolisation, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 1.21 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.50; 3 trials; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence) which was not supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis.\nIn addition, we found seven ongoing randomised clinical trials evaluating different external beam radiotherapy techniques for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low- and low-quality evidence suggesting that combined external beam radiotherapy and chemoembolisation may be associated with lower mortality and increased complete and overall response rates, despite an increased toxicity as expressed by a higher rise of bilirubin and alanine aminotransferase. A high risk of systematic errors (bias) as well as imprecision and inconsistency suggest that these findings should be considered cautiously and that high-quality trials are needed to assess further the role of external beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched the medical literature for randomised clinical trials (where people are allocated at random to one of two or more treatment groups) in order to perform an analysis of the role of radiotherapy administered externally for advanced liver cancer. We found nine randomised clinical trials including a total of 879 people with advanced liver cancer. All of the included trials were conducted in China. The average age in most of the included studies was around 52 years, and most trial participants were male. The average follow-up duration ranged from one to three years. All trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as low to very low quality. Most of the included trials compared combined radiotherapy and chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone. We also identified seven ongoing randomised clinical trials. The evidence is current to October 2016." } ]
query-laysum	24128	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCaesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO’s Guideline Development Group for this guideline.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions).\nMain results\nWe included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.\nOverall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.\nInterventions targeted at women or families\nChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.\nNurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.\nThere were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.\nInterventions targeted at healthcare professionals\nImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.\nInterventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilities\nCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.\nWe studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).\nLow-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).\nWe are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.\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": "Caesarean section is an operation used to prevent and reduce complications of childbirth. While it can be a life-saving procedure for both the mother and baby, caesarean section is not without harm and should only be carried out when necessary. Caesarean sections increase the likelihood of bleeding, maternal infections and infant breathing problems, among other complications. The number of caesarean sections performed has been increasing worldwide. Whilst there may be medical reasons for this increase, other factors, such as clinician convenience and maternal fears, may also be responsible." } ]
query-laysum	24129	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMass media interventions can be used as a way of delivering preventive health messages. They have the potential to reach and modify the knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of a large proportion of the community.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of mass media interventions on preventing smoking in young people, and whether it can reduce smoking uptake among youth (under 25 years), improve smoking attitudes, intentions and knowledge, improve self-efficacy/self-esteem, and improve perceptions about smoking, including the choice to follow positive role models.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE and Embase in June 2016. This is an update of a review first published in 1998.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized trials, controlled trials without randomization and interrupted time-series studies that assessed the effect of mass media campaigns (defined as channels of communication such as television, radio, newspapers, social media, billboards, posters, leaflets or booklets intended to reach large numbers of people and which are not dependent on person-to-person contact) in influencing the smoking behaviour (either objective or self-reported) of young people under the age of 25 years. We define smoking behaviour as the presence or absence of tobacco smoking or other tobacco use, or both, and the frequency of tobacco use. Eligible comparators included education or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted information relating to the characteristics and the content of media interventions, participants, outcomes, methods of the study and risks of bias. We combined studies using qualitative narrative synthesis. We assessed the risks of bias for each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, alongside additional domains to account for the nature of the intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence contributing to outcomes using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified eight eligible studies reporting information about mass media smoking campaigns, one of which is new for this update. Seven of the studies used a controlled trial design and one an interrupted time-series analysis. Risks of bias were high across all included studies and there was considerable heterogeneity in study design, intervention and population being assessed.Three studies (n = 17,385), one of which compared a mass media intervention to no intervention and two of which evaluated mass media interventions as adjuncts to school-based interventions, found that the mass media interventions reduced the smoking behaviour of young people. The remaining five studies (n = 72,740) did not detect a significant effect on smoking behaviour. These included three studies comparing a mass media intervention to no intervention, one study evaluating a mass media intervention as an adjunct to a school-based intervention, and one interrupted time-series study of a social media intervention. The three campaigns which found a significant effect described their theoretical basis, used formative research in designing the campaign messages, and used message broadcast of reasonable intensity over extensive periods of time. However, some of the campaigns which did not detect an effect also exhibited these characteristics. Effective campaigns tended to last longer (minimum 3 years) and were more intense (more contact time) for both school-based lessons (minimum eight lessons per grade) and media spots (minimum four weeks' duration across multiple media channels with between 167 and 350 TV and radio spots). Implementation of combined school-based components (e.g. school posters) and the use of repetitive media messages delivered by multiple channels (e.g. newspapers, radio, television) appeared to contribute to successful campaigns.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCertainty about the effects of mass media campaigns on smoking behaviour in youth is very low, due to inconsistency between studies in both design and results, and due to methodological issues amongst the included studies. It would therefore be unwise to offer firm conclusions based on the evidence in this review. Methodologically rigorous studies investigating the effect of social media and novel forms of technology as part of tobacco prevention campaigns for youth 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 eight studies out of 1326 publications, covering 52,746 participants. One of these studies is new to this updated version of the review. The most recent search was conducted in June 2016. All studies were directed at youth younger than 25 years. Seven studies were conducted in the USA and one was conducted in Norway. The mass media method (e.g. television) and certain characteristics of those taking part (e.g. age), as well as the length of time followed up, differed between studies." } ]
query-laysum	24130	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated oxycodone for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.\nOpioid drugs are commonly used to treat fibromyalgia, but they may not be beneficial for people with this condition. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for treating pain in fibromyalgia in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to 25 July 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing oxycodone (alone or in fixed-dose combination with naloxone) with placebo or another active treatment. We did not include observational studies.\nData collection and analysis\nThe plan was for two independent review authors to extract data and assess trial quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.\nMain results\nNo study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no randomised trial evidence to support or refute the suggestion that oxycodone, alone or in combination with naloxone, reduces pain in fibromyalgia.\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 information from randomised controlled trials on the benefits or harms of oxycodone when used to treat pain in fibromyalgia." } ]
query-laysum	24131	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRemote cognitive assessments are increasingly needed to assist in the detection of cognitive disorders, but the diagnostic accuracy of telephone- and video-based cognitive screening remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the test accuracy of any multidomain cognitive test delivered remotely for the diagnosis of any form of dementia.\nTo assess for potential differences in cognitive test scoring when using a remote platform, and where a remote screener was compared to the equivalent face-to-face test.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/) databases on 2 June 2021. We performed forward and backward searching of included citations.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cross-sectional studies, where a remote, multidomain assessment was administered alongside a clinical diagnosis of dementia or equivalent face-to-face test.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data; a third review author moderated disagreements. Our primary analysis was the accuracy of remote assessments against a clinical diagnosis of dementia. Where data were available, we reported test accuracy as sensitivity and specificity. We did not perform quantitative meta-analysis as there were too few studies at individual test level.\nFor those studies comparing remote versus in-person use of an equivalent screening test, if data allowed, we described correlations, reliability, differences in scores and the proportion classified as having cognitive impairment for each test.\nMain results\nThe review contains 31 studies (19 differing tests, 3075 participants), of which seven studies (six telephone, one video call, 756 participants) were relevant to our primary objective of describing test accuracy against a clinical diagnosis of dementia. All studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in at least one domain, but were low risk in applicability to the review question. Overall, sensitivity of remote tools varied with values between 26% and 100%, and specificity between 65% and 100%, with no clearly superior test.\nAcross the 24 papers comparing equivalent remote and in-person tests (14 telephone, 10 video call), agreement between tests was good, but rarely perfect (correlation coefficient range: 0.48 to 0.98).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the common and increasing use of remote cognitive assessment, supporting evidence on test accuracy is limited. Available data do not allow us to suggest a preferred test. Remote testing is complex, and this is reflected in the heterogeneity seen in tests used, their application, and their analysis. More research is needed to describe accuracy of contemporary approaches to remote cognitive assessment. While data comparing remote and in-person use of a test were reassuring, thresholds and scoring rules derived from in-person testing may not be applicable when the equivalent test is adapted for remote use.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We aimed to assess whether memory and thinking tests carried out by telephone or video call can detect dementia." } ]
query-laysum	24132	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWomen who have undergone surgical treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) may develop menopausal symptoms due to immediate loss of ovarian function following surgery and chemotherapy. Women may experience vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbance, difficulty concentrating, sexual dysfunction, vaginal symptoms and accelerated osteoporosis. Although hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the most effective treatment to relieve these symptoms, its safety has been questioned for women with EOC.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of HRT for menopausal symptoms in women surgically treated for EOC.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 12 June 2019) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2019, week 23). We also handsearched conference reports and trial registries. There was no language restriction.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with participants of any age and menopausal status who had undergone surgery for EOC and, after diagnosis and treatment, used any regimen and duration of HRT compared with placebo or no hormone therapy. We also included trials comparing different regimens or duration of administration of HRT.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified studies that met the inclusion criteria. They used Covidence to extract study characteristics, outcome data and to assess methodological quality of the included studies.\nMain results\nOur search strategy identified 2617 titles, of which 2614 titles were excluded. Three studies, involving 350 women, met our inclusion criteria. Two of the studies included pre and postmenopausal women, and the third only included premenopausal women. The overall age range of those women included in the studies was 20 to 89.6 years old, with a median follow-up ranging from 31.4 months to 19.1 years. The geographical distribution of participants included Europe, South Africa and China. All stages and histological subtypes were included in two of the studies, but stage IV disease had been excluded in the third. The three included studies used a variety of HRT regimens (conjugated oestrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone and with or without nylestriol) and HRT administrations (oral, patch and implant), In all studies, the comparisons were made versus women who had not received HRT.\nThe studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and reporting bias, and at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The certainty of the evidence was low for overall survival and progression-free survival, and very low for quality-of-life assessment, incidence of breast cancer, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and myocardial infarction (MI).\nMeta-analysis of these studies showed that HRT may improve overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.93; 350 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life assessment by use of the EORTC-C30 questionnaire was performed only in one study. We are uncertain whether HRT improves or reduces quality of life as the certainty of the evidence was assessed as very low (mean difference (MD) 13.67 points higher, 95% CI 9.26 higher to 18.08 higher; 1 study; 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Likewise, HRT may make little or no difference to progression-free survival (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.01; 275 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether HRT improves or reduces the incidence of breast cancer (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; 225 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); TIA (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 102.42; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); CVA (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.88; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and MI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of gallstones was not reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHormone replacement therapy may slightly improve overall survival in women who have undergone surgical treatment for EOC, but the certainty of the evidence is low. HRT may make little or no difference to quality of life, incidence of breast cancer, TIA, CVA and MI as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. There may be little or no effect of HRT use on progression-free survival. The evidence in this review is limited by imprecision and incompleteness of reported relevant outcomes and therefore the results should be interpreted with caution. Future well-designed RCTs are required as this is an important area to women experiencing menopausal symptoms following surgical treatment for ovarian cancer, especially as doctors are often reluctant to prescribe HRT in this scenario. The evidence in this review is too limited to support or refute that HRT is very harmful in this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes, mainly due to the small number of participants and low numbers of adverse events reported. The certainty of the evidence is also reduced due to the high risk of bias of the included studies, meaning their results might overestimate or underestimate the true effect of the treatment." } ]
query-laysum	24133	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatitis is a viral infection of the liver. It is mainly transmitted between people through contact with infected blood, frequently from mother to baby in-utero. Hepatitis B poses significant risk to the fetus and up to 85% of infants infected by their mothers at birth develop chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) is a purified solution of human immunoglobulin that could be administered to the mother, newborn, or both. HBIG offers protection against HBV infection when administered to pregnant women who test positive for hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg) or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), or both. When HBIG is administered to pregnant women, the antibodies passively diffuse across the placenta to the child. This materno-fetal diffusion is maximal during the third trimester of pregnancy. Up to 1% to 9% infants born to HBV-carrying mothers still have HBV infection despite the newborn receiving HBIG plus active HBV vaccine in the immediate neonatal period. This suggests that additional intervention such as HBIG administration to the mother during the antenatal period could be beneficial to reduce the transmission rate in utero.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) administration to pregnant women during their third trimester of pregnancy for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus infection.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), SCOPUS, African Journals OnLine, and INDEX MEDICUS up to June 2016. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in December 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials comparing HBIG versus placebo or no intervention in pregnant women with HBV.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors extracted data independently. We analysed dichotomous outcome data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcome data using mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For meta-analyses, we used a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model, along with an assessment of heterogeneity. If there were statistically significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate. If the two estimates were equal, we used the estimate with the widest CI as our main result. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group suggested bias risk domains and risk of random errors using Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nAll 36 included trials originated from China and were at overall high risk of bias. The trials included 6044 pregnant women who were HBsAg, HBeAg, or hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV-DNA) positive. Only seven trials reported inclusion of HBeAg-positive mothers. All 36 trials compared HBIG versus no intervention. None of the trials used placebo.\nMost of the trials assessed HBIG 100 IU (two trials) and HBIG 200 IU (31 trials). The timing of administration of HBIG varied; 30 trials administered three doses of HBIG 200 IU at 28, 32, and 36 weeks of pregnancy. None of the trials reported all-cause mortality or other serious adverse events in the mothers or babies. Serological signs of hepatitis B infection of the newborns were reported as HBsAg, HBeAg, and HBV-DNA positive results at end of follow-up. Twenty-nine trials reported HBsAg status in newborns (median 1.2 months of follow-up after birth; range 0 to 12 months); seven trials reported HBeAg status (median 1.1 months of follow-up after birth; range 0 to 12 months); and 16 trials reported HBV-DNA status (median 1.2 months of follow-up; range 0 to 12 months). HBIG reduced mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HBsAg when compared with no intervention (179/2769 (6%) with HBIG versus 537/2541 (21%) with no intervention; RR 0.30, TSA-adjusted CI 0.20 to 0.52; I2 = 36%; 29 trials; 5310 participants; very low quality evidence). HBV-DNA reduced MTCT of HBsAg (104/1112 (9%) with HBV-DNA versus 382/1018 (38%) with no intervention; RR 0.25, TSA-adjusted CI 0.22 to 0.27; I2 = 84%; 16 trials; 2130 participants; low quality evidence). TSA supported both results. Meta-analysis showed that maternal HBIG did not decrease HBeAg in newborns compared with no intervention (184/889 (21%) with HBIG versus 232/875 (27%) with no intervention; RR 0.68, TSA-adjusted CI 0.04 to 6.37; I2 = 90%; 7 trials; 1764 participants; very low quality evidence). TSA could neither support nor refute this observation as data were too sparse. None of the trials reported adverse events of the immunoglobulins on the newborns, presence of local and systemic adverse events on the mothers, or cost-effectiveness of treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to very low to low quality evidence found in this review, we are uncertain of the effect of benefit of antenatal HBIG administration to the HBV-infected mothers on newborn outcomes, such as HBsAg, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg compared with no intervention. The results of the effects of HBIG on HBsAg and HBeAg are surrogate outcomes (raising risk of indirectness), and we need to be critical while interpreting the findings. We found no data on newborn mortality or maternal mortality or both, or other serious adverse events. Well-designed randomised clinical trials are needed to determine the benefits and harms of HBIG versus placebo in prevention of MTCT of HBV.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "After searching the medical literature for relevant trials, we identified 36 clinical trials that recruited 6044 pregnant women with signs of HBV infection. All trials originated from China. All trials and trial results were at high risks of bias, which makes potential overestimation of benefits and underestimation of harms more likely." } ]
query-laysum	24134	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis overview was originally published in 2017, and is being updated in 2022.\nChronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue, for which opioids are prescribed by some physicians for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for CNCP lacks evidence of effectiveness, and may increase the risk of adverse events.\nObjectives\nTo describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for CNCP.\nMethods\nWe identified Cochrane Reviews and overviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library. The date of the last search was 21 July 2022. Two overview authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at a high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of CNCP in adults.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any reviews or overviews that met the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses, where all doses were analysed as a single group; we were unable to extract any data for high-dose use only.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a critical lack of high-quality evidence, in the form of Cochrane Reviews, about how well high-dose opioids work for the management of CNCP in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events.\nNo evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Considering that high-dose opioids have been, and are still being used in clinical practice to treat CNCP, knowing about the efficacy and safety of these higher doses is imperative.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In this updated overview, we aimed to summarise the knowledge from Cochrane Reviews and overviews about opioid medicine for pain relief in adults who had chronic pain not due to cancer. We wanted to know how well opioid medicines worked when they were used at high doses (equal to 200 mg of morphine per day or more), and what side effects there might be." } ]
query-laysum	24135	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nExacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are a major driver of decline in health status and impose high costs on healthcare systems. Action plans offer a form of self-management that can be delivered in the outpatient setting to help individuals recognise and initiate early treatment for exacerbations, thereby reducing their impact.\nObjectives\nTo compare effects of an action plan for COPD exacerbations provided with a single short patient education component and without a comprehensive self-management programme versus usual care. Primary outcomes were healthcare utilisation, mortality and medication use. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, psychological morbidity, lung function and cost-effectiveness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register along with CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers. Searches are current to November 2015. We handsearched bibliographic lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing use of an action plan versus usual care for patients with a clinical diagnosis of COPD. We permitted inclusion of a single short education component that would allow individualisation of action plans according to management needs and symptoms of people with COPD, as well as ongoing support directed at use of the action plan.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies via phone call follow-up directed at facilitating use of the action plan.\nMain results\nThis updated review includes two additional studies (and 976 additional participants), for a total of seven parallel-group RCTs and 1550 participants, 66% of whom were male. Participants' mean age was 68 years and was similar among studies. Airflow obstruction was moderately severe in three studies and severe in four studies; mean post bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 54% predicted, and 27% of participants were current smokers. Four studies prepared individualised action plans, one study an oral plan and two studies standard written action plans. All studies provided short educational input on COPD, and two studies supplied ongoing support for action plan use. Follow-up was 12 months in four studies and six months in three studies.\nWhen compared with usual care, an action plan with phone call follow-up significantly reduced the combined rate of hospitalisations and emergency department (ED) visits for COPD over 12 months in one study with 743 participants (rate ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.79; high-quality evidence), but the rate of hospitalisations alone in this study failed to achieve statistical significance (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). Over 12 months, action plans significantly decreased the likelihood of hospital admission (odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; n = 897; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 19 (11 to 201)) and the likelihood of an ED visit (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78; n = 897; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB over 12 months 12 (9 to 26)) compared with usual care.\nResults showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality during 12 months (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.31; n = 1134; four RCTs; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence interval). Over 12 months, use of oral corticosteroids was increased with action plans compared with usual care (mean difference (MD) 0.74 courses, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; n = 200; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), and the cumulative prednisolone dose was significantly higher (MD 779.0 mg, 95% CI 533.2 to 10248; n = 743; one RCT; high-quality evidence). Use of antibiotics was greater in the intervention group than in the usual care group (subgrouped by phone call follow-up) over 12 months (MD 2.3 courses, 95% CI 1.8 to 2.7; n = 943; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence).\nSubgroup analysis by ongoing support for action plan use was limited; review authors noted no subgroup differences in the likelihood of hospital admission or ED visits or all-cause mortality over 12 months. Antibiotic use over 12 months showed a significant difference between subgroups in studies without and with ongoing support.\nOverall quality of life score on St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) showed a small improvement with action plans compared with usual care over 12 months (MD -2.8, 95% CI -0.8 to -4.8; n = 1009; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed no benefit for psychological morbidity as measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).\nAuthors' conclusions\nUse of COPD exacerbation action plans with a single short educational component along with ongoing support directed at use of the action plan, but without a comprehensive self-management programme, reduces in-hospital healthcare utilisation and increases treatment of COPD exacerbations with corticosteroids and antibiotics. Use of COPD action plans in this context is unlikely to increase or decrease mortality. Whether additional benefit is derived from periodic ongoing support directed at use of an action plan cannot be determined from the results of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We believe that people with COPD should be given an individualised action plan with a short educational component so they can benefit from fewer and shorter hospital stays, better understanding of the need to self-start treatment and appropriate use of medication for exacerbations." } ]
query-laysum	24136	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is caused by degeneration of the joint cartilage and growth of new bone, cartilage and connective tissue. It is often associated with major disability and impaired quality of life. There is currently no consensus on the best treatment to improve OA symptoms. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID).\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical benefits (pain, function, quality of life) and safety (withdrawals due to adverse effects, serious adverse effects, overall discontinuation rates) of celecoxib in osteoarthritis (OA).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 11, 2017, as well as reference and citation lists of included studies. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of published articles were contacted.\nSelection criteria\nWe included published studies (full reports in a peer reviewed journal) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib versus no intervention, placebo or another traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in participants with clinically- or radiologically-confirmed primary OA of the knee or hip, or both knee and hip.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently performed data extraction, quality assessment, and compared results. Main analyses for patient-reported outcomes of pain and physical function were conducted on studies with low risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel.\nMain results\nWe included 36 trials that provided data for 17,206 adults: 9402 participants received celecoxib 200 mg/day, and 7804 were assigned to receive either tNSAIDs (N = 1869) or placebo (N = 5935). Celecoxib was compared with placebo (32 trials), naproxen (6 trials) and diclofenac (3 trials). Studies were published between 1999 and 2014. Studies included participants with knee, hip or both knee and hip OA; mean OA duration was 7.9 years. Most studies included predominantly white participants whose mean age was 62 (± 10) years; most participants were women. There were no concerns about risk of bias for performance and detection bias, but selection bias was poorly reported in most trials. Most trials had high attrition bias, and there was evidence of selective reporting in a third of the studies.\nCelecoxib versus placebo\nCompared with placebo celecoxib slightly reduced pain on a 500-point Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale, accounting for 3% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 5% improvement) or 12% relative improvement (95% CI 7% to 18% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).\nCompared with placebo celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 1700-point WOMAC scale, accounting for 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 6% improvement), 12% relative improvement (95% CI 5% to 19% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).\nThere was no evidence of an important difference for withdrawals due to adverse events (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.15) (moderate quality evidence due to study limitations).\nResults were inconclusive for numbers of participants experiencing any serious AEs (SAEs) (Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.36), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 1.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 14.90) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 3.40, 95% CI 0.73 to 15.88) (very low quality evidence due to serious imprecision and study limitations). However, regulatory agencies have warned of increased cardiovascular events for celecoxib.\nCelecoxib versus tNSAIDs\nThere were inconclusive results regarding the effect on pain between celecoxib and tNSAIDs on a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS), showing 5% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 2% worse), 11% relative improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worse) (2 studies, 1180 participants, moderate quality evidence due to publication bias).\nCompared to a tNSAID celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 100-point WOMAC scale, showing 6% absolute improvement (95% CI 6% to 11% improvement) and 16% relative improvement (95% CI 2% to 30% improvement). This improvement may not be clinically significant (low quality evidence due to missing data and few participants) (1 study, 264 participants).\nBased on low or very low quality evidence (downgraded due to missing data, high risk of bias, few events and wide confidence intervals) results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to AEs (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27), number of participants experiencing SAEs (Peto OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.28), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 0.61, 0.15 to 2.43) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.25).\nIn comparisons of celecoxib and placebo there were no differences in pooled analyses between our main analysis with low risk of bias and all eligible studies. In comparisons of celecoxib and tNSAIDs, only one outcome showed a difference between studies at low risk of bias and all eligible studies: physical function (6% absolute improvement in low risk of bias, no difference in all eligible studies).\nNo studies included in the main comparisons measured quality of life. Of 36 studies, 34 reported funding by drug manufacturers and in 34 studies one or more study authors were employees of the sponsor.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are highly reserved about results due to pharmaceutical industry involvement and limited data. We were unable to obtain data from three studies, which included 15,539 participants, and classified as awaiting assessment. Current evidence indicates that celecoxib is slightly better than placebo and some tNSAIDs in reducing pain and improving physical function. We are uncertain if harms differ among celecoxib and placebo or tNSAIDs due to risk of bias, low quality evidence for many outcomes, and that some study authors and Pfizer declined to provide data from completed studies with large numbers of participants. To fill the evidence gap, we need to access existing data and new, independent clinical trials to investigate benefits and harms of celecoxib versus tNSAIDs for people with osteoarthritis, with longer follow-up and more direct head-to-head comparisons with other tNSAIDs.\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 evaluated benefits and harms of celecoxib, a drug used to treat people with osteoarthritis, to improve pain, movement, quality of life and drug safety." } ]
query-laysum	24137	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAccess to the femoral vessels is necessary for a wide range of vascular procedures, including treatment of thromboembolic disease, arterial grafts (i.e. bifemoral aortic bypass or infrainguinal bypass), endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR), thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The surgical technique used to access the femoral artery may be a factor in the occurrence of postoperative complications; this will be the focus of our review. We will compare the transverse surgical technique—a cut made parallel to the groin crease—versus the vertical groin incision surgical technique—classic technique: a surgical cut made across the groin crease—to access the femoral artery, in an attempt to determine which technique has the lower rate of complications, is safer and is more effective.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of transverse groin incision compared with vertical groin incision for accessing the femoral artery in endovascular surgical procedures and open surgery.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to 17 February 2020. The review authors searched the IBECS database to 26 March 2020 and reference lists of relevant studies/papers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials (qRCTs) that compare transverse and vertical groin incision, during either endovascular or open surgery procedures.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (MVCRC, FCN) independently selected the studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, performed data analysis and graded the certainty of evidence according to GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included one RCT and one qRCT in this review. These two studies had a combined total of 237 participants (283 groins). Infection of the surgical wound was the only outcome that was similar in both studies, and that could therefore be submitted to a combined analysis.\nMeta-analysis of the two studies showed low-certainty evidence that transverse groin incision resulted in a lower risk of surgical wound infection in the 10- to 28-day period following surgery (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08 to 0.76; 2 studies; 283 groin incisions). There was low heterogeneity between the studies. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for surgical wound infection by one level due to serious limitations in the design (there was a high risk of bias in critical domains). The confidence interval for surgical wound infection is relatively wide, further indicating that the certainty of the effect estimate is low. This is likely due to the small number of studies and participants. We observed no evidence of a difference between the two surgical techniques for the other evaluated primary outcome 'lymphatic complications': lymphocele (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.02; 1 study; 116 groins); and lymphorrhea (RR 2.77, 95% CI 0.92 to 8.34; 1 study; 116 groins). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for lymphatic complications by one level due to serious limitations in the design (there was a high risk of bias in critical domains); and by two further levels because of imprecision (small number of participants and only one study included).\nHigh-quality studies are needed to enable a comparison of the two surgical techniques with respect to other outcomes, such as infection of the vascular graft (endoprosthesis/prosthesis), prolonged hospitalization, reoperative surgery, death, neurological deficit (e.g. paresthesia), amputation, graft patency, and postoperative pain.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this systematic review, we found low-certainty evidence that performing transverse groin incision to access the femoral artery resulted in fewer surgical wound infections compared with performing vertical groin incision. We observed no evidence of a difference between the two surgical techniques for the other evaluated outcomes (lymphocele and lymphorrhea). Other outcomes were not evaluated in these studies.\nLimitations of this systematic review are, however, the small sample size, short clinical follow-up period and high risk of bias in critical domains. For this reason, the applicability of the results is limited.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics and key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This systematic review includes two studies (most recent search February 2020): one randomized controlled trial and one quasi-randomized clinical trial. Both compared transverse versus vertical inguinal approaches. One study included 149 participants (167 groins) while the second study included 88 participants (116 groins), undergoing inguinal surgery to access the femoral artery.\nThe outcome 'wound or surgical site infection' was assessed in both studies. The combined analysis showed a lower rate of wound infections for the transverse inguinal incision compared with the vertical inguinal incision. One study assessed lymphatic complications and found no evidence of a difference between the two incision techniques. Other outcomes such as infection of the graft, hospitalization, death and postoperative pain were not reported by the two studies" } ]
query-laysum	24138	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIschaemia reperfusion injury can lead to kidney dysfunction or failure. Ischaemic preconditioning is a short period of deprivation of blood supply to particular organs or tissue, followed by a period of reperfusion. It has the potential to protect kidneys from ischaemia reperfusion injury.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of local and remote ischaemic preconditioning to reduce ischaemia and reperfusion injury among people with renal ischaemia reperfusion injury.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 5 August 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials measuring kidney function and the role of ischaemic preconditioning in patients undergoing a surgical intervention that induces kidney injury. Kidney transplantation studies were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nStudies were assessed for eligibility and quality; data were extracted by two independent authors. We collected basic study characteristics: type of surgery, remote ischaemic preconditioning protocol, type of anaesthesia. We collected primary outcome measurements: serum creatinine and adverse effects to remote ischaemic preconditioning and secondary outcome measurements: acute kidney injury, need for dialysis, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, hospital stay and mortality. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 28 studies which randomised a total of 6851 patients. Risk of bias assessment indicated unclear to low risk of bias for most studies. For consistency regarding the direction of effects, continuous outcomes with negative values, and dichotomous outcomes with values less than one favour remote ischaemic preconditioning. Based on high quality evidence, remote ischaemic preconditioning made little or no difference to the reduction of serum creatinine levels at postoperative days one (14 studies, 1022 participants: MD -0.02 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02; I2 = 21%), two (9 studies, 770 participants: MD -0.04 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02; I2 = 31%), and three (6 studies, 417 participants: MD -0.05 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; I2 = 68%) compared to control.\nSerious adverse events occurred in four patients receiving remote ischaemic preconditioning by iliac clamping. It is uncertain whether remote ischaemic preconditioning by cuff inflation leads to increased adverse effects compared to control because the certainty of the evidence is low (15 studies, 3993 participants: RR 3.47, 95% CI 0.55 to 21.76; I2 = 0%); only two of 15 studies reported any adverse effects (6/1999 in the remote ischaemic preconditioning group and 1/1994 in the control group), the remaining 13 studies stated no adverse effects were observed in either group.\nCompared to control, remote ischaemic preconditioning made little or no difference to the need for dialysis (13 studies, 2417 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.94; I2 = 60%; moderate quality evidence), length of hospital stay (8 studies, 920 participants: MD 0.17 days, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.80; I2 = 49%, high quality evidence), or all-cause mortality (24 studies, 4931 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.37; I2 = 0%, high quality evidence).\nRemote ischaemic preconditioning may have slightly improved the incidence of acute kidney injury using either the AKIN (8 studies, 2364 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; I2 = 61%, high quality evidence) or RIFLE criteria (3 studies, 1586 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12; I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nRemote ischaemic preconditioning by cuff inflation appears to be a safe method, and probably leads to little or no difference in serum creatinine, adverse effects, need for dialysis, length of hospital stay, death and in the incidence of acute kidney injury. Overall we had moderate-high certainty evidence however the available data does not confirm the efficacy of remote ischaemic preconditioning in reducing renal ischaemia reperfusion injury in patients undergoing major cardiac and vascular surgery in which renal ischaemia reperfusion injury may occur.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The kidney is highly sensitive to shortage in blood flow and thus oxygen supply. This may cause irreversible kidney injury leading to haemodialysis or death. Kidney injury does not only relate to the temporary lack of oxygen supply, but is also due to the re-saturation of blood flow. At this stage, toxic products are released and initiate a reaction of the body causing further cellular damage within the kidney, the so called ‘ischaemia-reperfusion injury’. A lack of oxygen supply to the kidney injury may have many different causes, for example blood pressure changes that may occur during major surgery." } ]
query-laysum	24139	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPortal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding (haemorrhage) from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal bleeding commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Therefore, prevention is important. Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in adults is the established standard of care because of the results of numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal bleeding. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Elsevier, and two other registers in February 2019. We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications, and performed a manual search of the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conference (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstracts from January 2008 to December 2018. We searched four registries for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status assessing sclerotherapy versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology to perform this systematic review. We used the intention-to-treat principle to analyse outcome data, and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome.\nMain results\nWe found only one randomised clinical trial that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial included 108 Brazilian children with median age of 4.3 years (range 11 months to 13 years). Fifty-six children were randomised to prophylactic sclerotherapy (ethanolamine oleate 2%) and 52 children to no intervention (control). Children were followed up for a median of 4.5 years. Eight children (six from the sclerotherapy group versus two from the control group) dropped out before the end of the trial. The follow-up was from 18 months to eight years. Mortality was 16% (9/56 children) in the sclerotherapy group versus 15% (8/52 children) in the control group (risk ration (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 2.50; very low-certainty evidence). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 21% (12/56) of the children in the sclerotherapy group versus 46% (24/52) in the control group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83; very low-certainty evidence). There were more children with congestive hypertensive gastropathy in the sclerotherapy group than in the control group (14% (8/56) versus 6% (3/52); RR 2.48, 95% CI 0.69 to 8.84; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of gastric varices was similar between the sclerotherapy group and the control group (11% (6/56) versus 10% (5/52); RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.43; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of bleeding from gastric varices was higher in the sclerotherapy group than in the control group (4% (3/56) versus 0% (0/52); RR 6.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 123.06; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not assess health-related quality of life. Oesophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 5% (3/56) of the children in the sclerotherapy group versus 40% (21/52) of the children in the control group (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42; very low-certainty evidence). The most prevalent complications (defined as non-serious) were pain and fever after the procedure, which promptly resolved with analgesics. However, numerical data on the frequency of these adverse events and their occurrences in the two groups were lacking.\nNo funding information was provided.\nWe found no ongoing trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence, obtained from one randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias, is very uncertain on whether sclerotherapy has an influence on mortality and if it may decrease first upper gastrointestinal or oesophageal variceal bleeding in children. The evidence is very uncertain on whether sclerotherapy has an influence on congestive hypertensive gastropathy, incidence on gastric varices, and incidence of bleeding from gastric varices. Health-related quality of life was not measured. There were no serious events caused by sclerotherapy, and analysis of non-serious adverse events could not be performed due to lack of numerical data. The GRADE assessment of each outcome showed a very low-certainty evidence. The results of the trial need to be interpreted with caution.\nLarger randomised clinical trials, following the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements, assessing the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are needed. The trials should include important clinical outcomes such as death, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Reliability of the evidence and conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There were concerns with the study design, and the study was at high risk of bias. Hence, these results need to be interpreted with caution. No other studies could be found for inclusion in this systematic review. Accordingly, we cannot recommend or refute the use of sclerotherapy in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Larger randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are needed. The trials should include important clinical outcomes such as death, failure to control bleeding, and side effects." } ]
query-laysum	24140	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatosplenic schistosomiasis is an important cause of variceal bleeding in low-income countries. Randomised clinical trials have evaluated the outcomes of two categories of surgical interventions, shunts and devascularisation procedures, for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. The comparative overall benefits and harms of these two interventions are unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisation procedures for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, reference lists of articles, and proceedings of relevant associations for trials that met the inclusion criteria (date of search 11 January 2018).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisation procedures for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the trials and extracted data using methodological standards expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias according to domains and risk of random errors with GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe found two randomised clinical trials including 154 adult participants, aged between 18 years and 65 years, diagnosed with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. One of the trials randomised participants to proximal splenorenal shunt versus distal splenorenal shunt versus oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy, and the other randomised participants to distal splenorenal shunt versus oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. In both trials the diagnosis of hepatosplenic schistosomiasis was made based on clinical and biochemical assessments. The trials were conducted in Brazil and Egypt. Both trials were at high risk of bias.\nWe are uncertain as to whether surgical portosystemic shunts improved all-cause mortality compared with oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy due to imprecision in the trials (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 9.92; participants = 154; studies = 2). We are uncertain whether serious adverse events differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy (RR 2.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 11.70; participants = 154; studies = 2). None of the trials reported on health-related quality of life. We are uncertain whether variceal rebleeding differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.23; participants = 154; studies = 2). We found evidence suggesting an increase in encephalopathy in the shunts group versus the devascularisation with splenectomy group (RR 7.51, 95% CI 1.45 to 38.89; participants = 154; studies = 2). We are uncertain whether ascites and re-interventions differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. We computed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes, but the trial sequential monitoring boundaries could not be drawn because of insufficient sample size and events. We downgraded the overall certainty of the body of evidence for all outcomes to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the very low certainty of the available body of evidence and the low number of clinical trials, we could not determine an overall benefit or harm of surgical portosystemic shunts compared with oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be designed with sufficient statistical power to assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisations with or without splenectomy and with or without oesophageal transection.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Given the very low certainty of the evidence due to the way the clinical trials were performed, limited trial data and trial participants, we were unable to determine whether one treatment is better than the other. We suggest that future trials include a sufficient number of randomised participants to be able to obtain meaningful results on patient-relevant outcomes and allow objective comparison of these two surgery types." } ]
query-laysum	24141	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDiverticular disease is a common condition in Western industrialised countries. Most individuals remain asymptomatic throughout life; however, 25% experience acute diverticulitis. The standard treatment for acute diverticulitis is open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery - a minimal-access procedure - offers an alternative approach to open surgery, as it is characterised by reduced operative stress that may translate into shorter hospitalisation and more rapid recovery, as well as improved quality of life.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgical resection compared with open surgical resection for individuals with acute sigmoid diverticulitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 23 February 2017); Ovid Embase (1974 to 23 February 2017); clinicaltrials.gov (February 2017); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry (February 2017). We reviewed the bibliographies of identified trials to search for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing elective or emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection versus open surgical resection for acute sigmoid diverticulitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed the domains of risk of bias from each included trial, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for outcomes such as hospital stay, and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for quality of life and global rating scales, if researchers used different scales.\nMain results\nThree trials with 392 participants met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in three European countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, and Germany). The median age of participants ranged from 62 to 66 years; 53% to 64% were female. Inclusion criteria differed among studies. One trial included participants with Hinchey I characteristics as well as those who underwent Hartmann’s procedure; the second trial included only participants with \"a proven stage II/III disease according to the classification of Stock and Hansen\"; the third trial considered for inclusion patients with \"diverticular disease of sigmoid colon documented by colonoscopy and 2 episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis, one at least being documented with CT scan, 1 episode of complicated diverticulitis, with a pericolic abscess (Hinchey stage I) or pelvic abscess (Hinchey stage II) requiring percutaneous drainage.\"\nWe determined that two studies were at low risk of selection bias; two that reported considerable dropouts were at high risk of attrition bias; none reported blinding of outcome assessors (unclear detection bias); and all were exposed to performance bias owing to the nature of the intervention.\nAvailable low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgical resection may lead to little or no difference in mean hospital stay compared with open surgical resection (3 studies, 360 participants; MD -0.62 (days), 95% CI -2.49 to 1.25; I² = 0%).\nLow-quality evidence suggests that operating time was longer in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open surgery group (3 studies, 360 participants; MD 49.28 (minutes), 95% CI 40.64 to 57.93; I² = 0%).\nWe are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative pain between day 1 and day 3 more effectively than open surgery. Low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgery may improve postoperative pain at the fourth postoperative day more effectively than open surgery (2 studies, 250 participants; MD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.25).\nResearchers reported quality of life differently across trials, hindering the possibility of meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence from one trial using the Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire six weeks after surgery suggests that laparoscopic intervention may improve quality of life, whereas evidence from two other trials using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3 and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score, respectively, suggests that laparoscopic surgery may make little or no difference in improving quality of life compared with open surgery.\nWe are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves the following outcomes: 30-day postoperative mortality, early overall morbidity, major and minor complications, surgical complications, postoperative times to liquid and solid diets, and reoperations due to anastomotic leak.\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults from the present comprehensive review indicate that evidence to support or refute the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgical resection for treatment of patients with acute diverticular disease is insufficient. Well-designed trials with adequate sample size are needed to investigate the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery towards important patient-oriented (e.g. postoperative pain) and health system-oriented outcomes (e.g. mean hospital stay).\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": "Diverticular disease is a condition in which the inner layer of the intestinal wall (mucosa) protrudes through weak points in the muscular layer of the wall, forming small pouches (diverticula) that bulge out of the large bowel. The inflammation of diverticula is defined as diverticulitis. Diverticulitis is more common in the sigmoid colon than in the other tracts of the large bowel. In Western countries, diverticular disease is very common, affecting about 60% of the population over 70 years of age. Most individuals with diverticular disease have no symptoms or experience only mild pain in the lower abdomen, accompanied by a slight change in bowel habits. Individuals with acute diverticulitis may experience pain in the lower abdomen and other symptoms such as fever, nausea, vomiting, and shivering. Diverticulitis generally is treated medically with antibiotics and diet. However, for individuals who experience recurrent abdominal pain or complications, surgical resection of the affected bowel segment is required; this can be performed through conventional open or laparoscopic surgery techniques.\nIn open surgery, a large abdominal incision is made at the midline to gain access to the abdominal cavity, but via laparoscopy, only small parietal incisions (usually 5 to 12 mm long) are made through the abdominal wall, allowing positioning of gas laparoscopic parietal cannulas (tubes that are inserted into the body) that provide access to the abdominal cavity with long-handled dedicated surgical instruments used under vision of an endoscopic camera. A laparoscopic parietal cannula is a sharp-pointed surgical instrument that is fitted with a tight cannula and is used to insert the tight cannula into a body cavity.\nThis review addresses the question of whether laparoscopy is more effective and/or safer than open surgery in the treatment of individuals with diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon who require a surgical resection." } ]
query-laysum	24142	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary hypertension (PH) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality, which leads to a substantial loss of exercise capacity. PH ultimately leads to right ventricular overload and subsequent heart failure and early death. Although early detection and treatment of PH are recommended, due to the limited responsiveness to therapy at late disease stages, many patients are diagnosed at a later stage of the disease because symptoms and signs of PH are nonspecific at earlier stages. While direct pressure measurement with right-heart catheterisation is the clinical reference standard for PH, it is not routinely used due to its invasiveness and complications. Trans-thoracic Doppler echocardiography is less invasive, less expensive, and widely available compared to right-heart catheterisation; it is therefore recommended that echocardiography be used as an initial diagnosis method in guidelines. However, several studies have questioned the accuracy of noninvasively measured pulmonary artery pressure. There is substantial uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography for the diagnosis of PH.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of trans-thoracic Doppler echocardiography for detecting PH.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to August 2021, reference lists of articles, and contacted study authors. We applied no restrictions on language or type of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of trans-thoracic Doppler echocardiography for detecting PH, where right-heart catheterisation was the reference standard. We excluded diagnostic case-control studies (two-gate design), studies where right-heart catheterisation was not the reference standard, and those in which the reference standard threshold differed from 25 mmHg. We also excluded studies that did not provide sufficient diagnostic test accuracy data (true-positive [TP], false-positive [FP], true-negative [TN], and false-negative [FN] values, based on the reference standard). We included studies that provided data from which we could extract TP, FP, TN, and FN values, based on the reference standard. Two authors independently screened and assessed the eligibility based on the titles and abstracts of records identified by the search. After the title and abstract screening, the full-text reports of all potentially eligible studies were obtained, and two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the full-text reports.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from each of the included studies. We contacted the authors of the included studies to obtain missing data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We estimated a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve by fitting a hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) non-linear mixed model. We explored sources of heterogeneity regarding types of PH, methods to estimate the right atrial pressure, and threshold of index test to diagnose PH. All analyses were performed using the Review Manager 5, SAS and STATA statistical software.\nMain results\nWe included 17 studies (comprising 3656 adult patients) assessing the diagnostic accuracy of Doppler trans-thoracic echocardiography for the diagnosis of PH. The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of patient distribution of age, sex, WHO classification, setting, country, positivity threshold, and year of publication. The prevalence of PH reported in the included studies varied widely (from 6% to 88%). The threshold of index test for PH diagnosis varied widely (from 30 mmHg to 47 mmHg) and was not always prespecified. No study was assigned low risk of bias or low concern in each QUADAS-2 domain assessed. Poor reporting, especially in the index test and reference standard domains, hampered conclusive judgement about the risk of bias. There was little consistency in the thresholds used in the included studies; therefore, common thresholds contained very sparse data, which prevented us from calculating summary points of accuracy estimates. With a fixed specificity of 86% (the median specificity), the estimated sensitivity derived from the median value of specificity using HSROC model was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78% to 96%). Using a prevalence of PH of 68%, which was the median among the included studies conducted mainly in tertiary hospitals, diagnosing a cohort of 1000 adult patients under suspicion of PH would result in 88 patients being undiagnosed with PH (false negatives) and 275 patients would avoid unnecessary referral for a right-heart catheterisation (true negatives). In addition, 592 of 1000 patients would receive an appropriate and timely referral for a right-heart catheterisation (true positives), while 45 patients would be wrongly considered to have PH (false positives). Conversely, when we assumed low prevalence of PH (10%), as in the case of preoperative examinations for liver transplantation, the number of false negatives and false positives would be 13 and 126, respectively.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur evidence assessment of echocardiography for the diagnosis of PH in adult patients revealed several limitations. We were unable to determine the average sensitivity and specificity at any particular index test threshold and to explain the observed variability in results. The high heterogeneity of the collected data and the poor methodological quality would constrain the implementation of this result into clinical practice. Further studies relative to the accuracy of Doppler trans-thoracic echocardiography for the diagnosis of PH in adults, that apply a rigorous methodology for conducting diagnostic test accuracy studies, are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Pulmonary hypertension is high blood pressure in the blood vessels that supply blood from the right half of the heart to the lungs. It is a serious condition that can damage the right side of the heart. The walls in the blood vessels become thick and stiff which makes it harder for the blood to flow. This can lead to heart failure. Symptoms can include shortness of breath, tiredness, chest pain, a racing heartbeat or swelling in the lower limbs and abdomen.\nThe symptoms can be similar to other heart and lung diseases, so diagnosis can take time. Early diagnosis is beneficial because treatment can start early. Starting treatment early is better because people respond better to treatment in the early stages of the disease. Not being diagnosed early can have severe consequences such as disability in daily life or death.\nThe most accurate way to diagnose pulmonary hypertension is using a pressure measurement called right-heart catheterisation. However, this is invasive and can cause complications. Another technique, called Doppler echocardiography is noninvasive, cheaper and more widely available in hospitals. Therefore, many guidelines recommend the use of echocardiography as an initial diagnosis method. We wanted to do this review because several studies have questioned the accuracy of echocardiography. We wanted to find out how good echocardiography is compared to right-heart catheterisation for the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension." } ]
query-laysum	24143	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with abdominal aortic aneurysm who receive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) need lifetime surveillance to detect potential endoleaks. Endoleak is defined as persistent blood flow within the aneurysm sac following EVAR. Computed tomography (CT) angiography is considered the reference standard for endoleak surveillance. Colour duplex ultrasound (CDUS) and contrast-enhanced CDUS (CE-CDUS) are less invasive but considered less accurate than CT.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of colour duplex ultrasound (CDUS) and contrast-enhanced-colour duplex ultrasound (CE-CDUS) in terms of sensitivity and specificity for endoleak detection after endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ISI Conference Proceedings, Zetoc, and trial registries in June 2016 without language restrictions and without use of filters to maximize sensitivity.\nSelection criteria\nAny cross-sectional diagnostic study evaluating participants who received EVAR by both ultrasound (with or without contrast) and CT scan assessed at regular intervals.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of included studies using the QUADAS 1 tool. A third review author resolved discrepancies. The unit of analysis was number of participants for the primary analysis and number of scans performed for the secondary analysis. We carried out a meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity of CDUS or CE-CDUS using a bivariate model. We analysed each index test separately. As potential sources of heterogeneity, we explored year of publication, characteristics of included participants (age and gender), direction of the study (retrospective, prospective), country of origin, number of CDUS operators, and ultrasound manufacturer.\nMain results\nWe identified 42 primary studies with 4220 participants. Twenty studies provided accuracy data based on the number of individual participants (seven of which provided data with and without the use of contrast). Sixteen of these studies evaluated the accuracy of CDUS. These studies were generally of moderate to low quality: only three studies fulfilled all the QUADAS items; in six (40%) of the studies, the delay between the tests was unclear or longer than four weeks; in eight (50%), the blinding of either the index test or the reference standard was not clearly reported or was not performed; and in two studies (12%), the interpretation of the reference standard was not clearly reported. Eleven studies evaluated the accuracy of CE-CDUS. These studies were of better quality than the CDUS studies: five (45%) studies fulfilled all the QUADAS items; four (36%) did not report clearly the blinding interpretation of the reference standard; and two (18%) did not clearly report the delay between the two tests.\nBased on the bivariate model, the summary estimates for CDUS were 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.91) for sensitivity and 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) for specificity whereas for CE-CDUS the estimates were 0.94 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.98) for sensitivity and 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) for specificity. Regression analysis showed that CE-CDUS was superior to CDUS in terms of sensitivity (LR Chi2 = 5.08, 1 degree of freedom (df); P = 0.0242 for model improvement).\nSeven studies provided estimates before and after administration of contrast. Sensitivity before contrast was 0.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.83) and after contrast was 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.99). The improvement in sensitivity with of contrast use was statistically significant (LR Chi2 = 13.47, 1 df; P = 0.0002 for model improvement).\nRegression testing showed evidence of statistically significant effect bias related to year of publication and study quality within individual participants based CDUS studies. Sensitivity estimates were higher in the studies published before 2006 than the estimates obtained from studies published in 2006 or later (P < 0.001); and studies judged as low/unclear quality provided higher estimates in sensitivity. When regression testing was applied to the individual based CE-CDUS studies, none of the items, namely direction of the study design, quality, and age, were identified as a source of heterogeneity.\nTwenty-two studies provided accuracy data based on number of scans performed (of which four provided data with and without the use of contrast). Analysis of the studies that provided scan based data showed similar results. Summary estimates for CDUS (18 studies) showed 0.72 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.85) for sensitivity and 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.96) for specificity whereas summary estimates for CE-CDUS (eight studies) were 0.91 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) for sensitivity and 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.96) for specificity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review demonstrates that both ultrasound modalities (with or without contrast) showed high specificity. For ruling in endoleaks, CE-CDUS appears superior to CDUS. In an endoleak surveillance programme CE-CDUS can be introduced as a routine diagnostic modality followed by CT scan only when the ultrasound is positive to establish the type of endoleak and the subsequent therapeutic management.\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 collected the most recent evidence (to July 2016) and conducted a meta-analysis according to the most appropriate methods for diagnostic tests. We included 42 studies with 4220 participants in the review." } ]
query-laysum	24144	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRetrospective analyses suggest that capecitabine may carry superior activity in hormone receptor-positive relative to hormone receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer. This review examined the veracity of that finding and explored whether this differential activity extends to early breast cancer.\nObjectives\nTo assess effects of chemotherapy regimens containing capecitabine compared with regimens not containing capecitabine for women with hormone receptor-positive versus hormone receptor-negative breast cancer across the three major treatment scenarios: neoadjuvant, adjuvant, metastatic.\nSearch methods\nOn 4 June 2019, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials looking at chemotherapy regimens containing capecitabine alone or in combination with other agents versus a control or similar regimen without capecitabine for treatment of breast cancer at any stage. The primary outcome measure for metastatic and adjuvant trials was overall survival (OS), and for neoadjuvant studies pathological complete response (pCR).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included 26 studies with outcome data by hormone receptor: 12 metastatic studies (n = 4325), 6 neoadjuvant trials (n = 3152), and 8 adjuvant studies (n = 13,457).\nCapecitabine treatment was added in several different ways across studies. These could be classified as capecitabine alone compared to another treatment, capecitabine substituted for part of the control chemotherapy, and capecitabine added to control chemotherapy.\nIn the metastatic setting, the effect of capecitabine was heterogenous between hormone receptor-positive and -negative tumours. For OS, no difference between capecitabine-containing and non-capecitabine-containing regimens was observed for all participants taken together (HR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.05; 12 studies, 4325 participants; high-certainty evidence), for those with hormone receptor-positive disease (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 7 studies, 1834 participants; high-certainty evidence), and for those with hormone receptor-negative disease (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 8 studies, 1577 participants; high-certainty evidence). For progression-free survival (PFS), a small improvement was seen for all people (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; 12 studies, 4325 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This was largely accounted for by a moderate improvement in PFS for inclusion of capecitabine in hormone receptor-positive cancers (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91; 7 studies, 1594 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to no difference in PFS for hormone receptor-negative cancers (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10; 7 studies, 1122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life was assessed in five studies; in general there did not seem to be differences in global health scores between the two treatment groups at around two years' follow-up.\nNeoadjuvant studies were highly variable in design, having been undertaken to test various experimental regimens using pathological complete response (pCR) as a surrogate for disease-free survival (DFS) and OS. Across all patients, capecitabine-containing regimens resulted in little difference in pCR in comparison to non-capecitabine-containing regimens (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.33; 6 studies, 3152 participants; high-certainty evidence). By subtype, no difference in pCR was observed for either hormone receptor-positive (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95; 4 studies, 964 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hormone receptor-negative tumours (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.66; 4 studies, 646 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 2460 people reported longer-term outcomes: these investigators detected no difference in either DFS (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; high-certainty evidence) or OS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; high-certainty evidence).\nIn the adjuvant setting, a modest improvement in OS was observed across all participants (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98; 8 studies, 13,547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and no difference in OS was seen in hormone receptor-positive cancers (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 3 studies, 3683 participants), whereas OS improved in hormone receptor-negative cancers (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89; 5 studies, 3432 participants). No difference in DFS or relapse-free survival (RFS) was observed across all participants (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; 8 studies, 13,457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). As was observed for OS, no difference in DFS/RFS was seen in hormone receptor-positive cancers (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; 5 studies, 5604 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and improvements in DFS/RFS with inclusion of capecitabine were observed for hormone receptor-negative cancers (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.86; 7 studies, 3307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse effects were reported across all three scenarios. When grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia was considered, no difference was seen for capecitabine compared to non-capecitabine regimens in neoadjuvant studies (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.77; 4 studies, 2890 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a marked reduction was seen for capecitabine in adjuvant studies (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64; 5 studies, 8086 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was an increase in diarrhoea and hand-foot syndrome in neoadjuvant (diarrhoea: OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.89; 3 studies, 2686 participants; hand-foot syndrome: OR 6.77, 95% CI 4.89 to 9.38; 5 studies, 3021 participants; both moderate-certainty evidence) and adjuvant trials (diarrhoea: OR 2.46, 95% CI 2.01 to 3.01; hand-foot syndrome: OR 13.60, 95% CI 10.65 to 17.37; 8 studies, 11,207 participants; moderate-certainty evidence for both outcomes).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn summary, a moderate PFS benefit by including capecitabine was seen only in hormone receptor-positive cancers in metastatic studies. No benefit of capecitabine for pCR was noted overall or in hormone receptor subgroups when included in neoadjuvant therapy. In contrast, the addition of capecitabine in the adjuvant setting led to improved outcomes for OS and DFS in hormone receptor-negative cancer. Future studies should stratify by hormone receptor and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) status to clarify the differential effects of capecitabine in these subgroups across all treatment scenarios, to optimally guide capecitabine inclusion.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to June 2019." } ]
query-laysum	24145	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO) is the most frequent extrathyroidal manifestation of Graves' disease, affecting up to 50% of patients. It has a great impact on quality of life. Rituximab (RTX) is a human/murine chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets the CD20 receptor on B-lymphocytes. Preliminary work has shown that blocking this CD20 receptor with RTX may affect the clinical course of TAO by reducing inflammation and the degree of proptosis.\nObjectives\nThis review update, originally published in 2013, assesses the efficacy and safety of using RTX for the treatment of TAO.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2022, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS), the ISRCTN registry, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). There were no language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RTX administered by intravenous infusion using any dosage regimen for the treatment of active TAO in adults, compared to placebo or glucocorticoids treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently scanned titles and abstracts, and screened full-text reports of potentially relevant studies. The outcomes of interest in this review were: clinical activity score (CAS), NOSPECS severity scale, proptosis (mm), palpebral aperture (mm), extraocular motility (degrees or diplopia rating scale), quality of life and adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe identified two studies that met the inclusion criteria in this updated review. Across both studies, the mean age of participants was 55 years and 77% were women.\nRTX compared to intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP)\nOne study, conducted in Italy, compared RTX (n = 15 after one participant withdrew) with IVMP (n = 16) for active TAO (CAS ≥ 3 out of 7 or 4 out of 10). We judged this study to be at low risk of bias in most domains, but it was stopped early because of disease reactivation in the comparator group (5/16 participants). This study provided low-certainty evidence that RTX may result in CAS improvement at 24 weeks compared to IVMP (15/15 versus 12/16 improved by ≥ 2 points; risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.78). Only very low-certainty evidence was available for the other outcomes: NOSPECS improvement by 2 or more classes (3/15 versus 3/16; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.49); proptosis improvement by 2 mm or more (0/15 versus 1/16; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.08); palpebral aperture improvement by 3 mm or more (2/15 versus 0/16; RR 5.31, 95% CI 0.28 to 102.38); motility improvement by 1 class or more (3/15 versus 3/16; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.49); and improvement on the Graves’ ophthalmopathy QoL scale by at least 6 points for \"functioning\" (5/14 versus 8/13; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.32), and “appearance” (9/14 versus 6/13; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.82). Adverse events were more common in the RTX group (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.13; low-certainty evidence). Minor adverse effects (mild infusion reactions) were observed in most people receiving RTX at first infusion. Two participants experienced a major infusion reaction, likely cytokine release syndrome.\nRTX compared to placebo\nOne study, conducted in the USA, enrolled 25 participants with active TAO (CAS ≥ 4 out of 7), comparing RTX (13 participants) to placebo. We judged this study to be at low risk of bias in most domains, but it was stopped early due to recruitment issues. It provided very low-certainty evidence on the following outcomes at 24 weeks: CAS improvement by 2 or more points (4/13 RTX versus 3/12 placebo; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.40); NOSPECS improvement by 2 or more classes (2/13 versus 2/12; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.15 to 5.56); proptosis improvement by 2 mm or more (2/13 versus 4/12; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.08); palpebral aperture median change (0 mm in RTX group, in both eyes separately, versus -0.5 mm and 0.5 mm in placebo group right and left eye, respectively); motility median diplopia score (3 versus 2.5); SF-12 physical component median score (45.9 versus 40.3) and mental component median score (52.8 versus 46.1). More participants in the RTX group experienced adverse effects (8/13 versus 3/12; RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.84 to 7.18).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of RTX in people with TAO. Future studies investigating RTX in people with active TAO may need to be multi-centre in order to recruit enough participants to make an adequate judgement on the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Treatment options for severe thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy include anti-inflammation medicines called steroids, and radiotherapy. However, relapses are common. Surgery to relieve the pressure that builds up behind the eye (orbital decompression) is usually reserved for sight-threatening cases.\nA possible alternative treatment is a medicine called rituximab, given as an intravenous infusion (injection into the vein), which aims to stop the body’s defence system (immune system) from mistakenly attacking its healthy tissues and causing inflammation." } ]
query-laysum	24146	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOral poisoning is a major cause of mortality and disability worldwide, with estimates of over 100,000 deaths due to unintentional poisoning each year and an overrepresentation of children below five years of age. Any effective intervention that laypeople can apply to limit or delay uptake or to evacuate, dilute or neutralize the poison before professional help arrives may limit toxicity and save lives.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pre-hospital interventions (alone or in combination) for treating acute oral poisoning, available to and feasible for laypeople before the arrival of professional help.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and three clinical trials registries to 4 December 2018, and we also carried out reference checking and citation searching.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials comparing interventions (alone or in combination) that are feasible in a pre-hospital setting for treating acute oral poisoning patients, including but potentially not limited to activated charcoal (AC), emetics, cathartics, diluents, neutralizing agents and body positioning.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, data collection and assessment. Primary outcomes of this review were incidence of mortality and adverse events, plus incidence and severity of symptoms of poisoning. Secondary outcomes were duration of symptoms of poisoning, drug absorption, and incidence of hospitalization and ICU admission.\nMain results\nWe included 24 trials involving 7099 participants. Using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, we assessed no study as being at low risk of bias for all domains. Many studies were poorly reported, so the risk of selection and detection biases were often unclear. Most studies reported important outcomes incompletely, and we judged them to be at high risk of reporting bias.\nAll but one study enrolled oral poisoning patients in an emergency department; the remaining study was conducted in a pre-hospital setting. Fourteen studies included multiple toxic syndromes or did not specify, while the other studies specifically investigated paracetamol (2 studies), carbamazepine (2 studies), tricyclic antidepressant (2 studies), yellow oleander (2 studies), benzodiazepine (1 study), or toxic berry intoxication (1 study). Twenty-one trials investigated the effects of activated charcoal (AC), administered as a single dose (SDAC) or in multiple doses (MDAC), alone or in combination with other first aid interventions (a cathartic) and/or hospital treatments. Six studies investigated syrup of ipecac plus other first aid interventions (SDAC + cathartic) versus ipecac alone. The collected evidence was mostly of low to very low certainty, often downgraded for indirectness, risk of bias or imprecision due to low numbers of events.\nFirst aid interventions that limit or delay the absorption of the poison in the body\nWe are uncertain about the effect of SDAC compared to no intervention on the incidence of adverse events in general (zero events in both treatment groups; 1 study, 451 participants) or vomiting specifically (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 57.26, 1 study, 25 participants), ICU admission (Peto OR 7.77, 95% CI 0.15 to 391.93, 1 study, 451 participants) and clinical deterioration (zero events in both treatment groups; 1 study, 451 participants) in participants with mixed types or paracetamol poisoning, as all evidence for these outcomes was of very low certainty. No studies assessed SDAC for mortality, duration of symptoms, drug absorption or hospitalization.\nOnly one study compared SDAC to syrup of ipecac in participants with mixed types of poisoning, providing very low-certainty evidence. Therefore we are uncertain about the effects on Glasgow Coma Scale scores (mean difference (MD) −0.15, 95% CI −0.43 to 0.13, 1 study, 34 participants) or incidence of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.83, 1 study, 34 participants). No information was available concerning mortality, duration of symptoms, drug absorption, hospitalization or ICU admission.\nThis review also considered the added value of SDAC or MDAC to hospital interventions, which mostly included gastric lavage. No included studies investigated the use of body positioning in oral poisoning patients.\nFirst aid interventions that evacuate the poison from the gastrointestinal tract\nWe found one study comparing ipecac versus no intervention in toxic berry ingestion in a pre-hospital setting. Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be an increase in the incidence of adverse events, but the study did not report incidence of mortality, incidence or duration of symptoms of poisoning, drug absorption, hospitalization or ICU admission (103 participants).\nIn addition, we also considered the added value of syrup of ipecac to SDAC plus a cathartic and the added value of a cathartic to SDAC.\nNo studies used cathartics as an individual intervention.\nFirst aid interventions that neutralize or dilute the poison\nNo included studies investigated the neutralization or dilution of the poison in oral poisoning patients.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe studies included in this review provided mostly low- or very low-certainty evidence about the use of first aid interventions for acute oral poisoning. A key limitation was the fact that only one included study actually took place in a pre-hospital setting, which undermines our confidence in the applicability of these results to this setting. Thus, the amount of evidence collected was insufficient to draw any conclusions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Two studies compared a single dose of activated charcoal to no treatment following poisoning with paracetamol or different kinds of poisoning. We are uncertain about the treatment's side effects, admission to intensive care or worsening of the patient, and there was no information about effects on death, symptom duration, poison uptake or hospitalization.\nOne study compared a single dose of activated charcoal to ipecac in mixed types of poisoning. We are uncertain about the effect of activated charcoal compared to ipecac, on the patient's level of coma or the number of unwanted effects. There was no information about effects on death, symptom duration, poison uptake, hospitalization or intensive care admission.\nOne study compared ipecac to no treatment in children who ate poisonous berries at home. There may be an increase in the number of unwanted effects for ipecac. There was no information about effects on death, poisoning symptoms, symptoms duration, poison uptake, hospitalization or intensive care admission.\nWe also investigated the use of single-dose or multi-dose activated charcoal, with or without hospital treatment, compared to each other or no treatment. Furthermore, we investigated the added value of ipecac to single-dose activated charcoal and the added value of adding bowel transit enhancing substances to AC." } ]
query-laysum	24147	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients often require a rapid sequence induction (RSI) endotracheal intubation technique during emergencies or electively to protect against aspiration, increased intracranial pressure, or to facilitate intubation. Traditionally succinylcholine has been the most commonly used muscle relaxant for this purpose because of its fast onset and short duration; unfortunately, it can have serious side effects. Rocuronium has been suggested as an alternative to succinylcholine for intubation. This is an update of our Cochrane review published first in 2003 and then updated in 2008 and now in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether rocuronium creates intubating conditions comparable to those of succinylcholine during RSI intubation.\nSearch methods\nIn our initial review we searched all databases until March 2000, followed by an update to June 2007. This latest update included searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to February Week 2 2015), and EMBASE (1988 to February 14 2015 ) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) relating to the use of rocuronium and succinylcholine. We included foreign language journals and handsearched the references of identified studies for additional citations.\nSelection criteria\nWe included any RCT or CCT that reported intubating conditions in comparing the use of rocuronium and succinylcholine for RSI or modified RSI in any age group or clinical setting. The dose of rocuronium was at least 0.6 mg/kg and succinylcholine was at least 1 mg/kg.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors (EN and DT) independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality for the 'Risk of bias' tables. We combined the outcomes in Review Manager 5 using a risk ratio (RR) with a random-effects model.\nMain results\nThe previous update (2008) had identified 53 potential studies and included 37 combined for meta-analysis. In this latest update we identified a further 13 studies and included 11, summarizing the results of 50 trials including 4151 participants. Overall, succinylcholine was superior to rocuronium for achieving excellent intubating conditions: RR 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.92; n = 4151) and clinically acceptable intubation conditions (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99; n = 3992, 48 trials). A high incidence of detection bias amongst the trials coupled with significant heterogeneity provides moderate-quality evidence for these conclusions, which are unchanged from the previous update. Succinylcholine was more likely to produce excellent intubating conditions when using thiopental as the induction agent: RR 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.88; n = 2302, 28 trials). In the previous update, we had concluded that propofol was the superior induction agent with succinylcholine. There were no reported incidences of severe adverse outcomes. We found no statistical difference in intubation conditions when succinylcholine was compared to 1.2 mg/kg rocuronium; however, succinylcholine was clinically superior as it has a shorter duration of action.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSuccinylcholine created superior intubation conditions to rocuronium in achieving excellent and clinically acceptable intubating conditions.\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": "In emergency situations some people need a general anaesthetic with an endotracheal tube (a tube to help them breathe). It is important to have fast-acting medications to allow physicians to complete this procedure quickly and safely. Currently, the medication used most frequently to relax muscles is succinylcholine. Succinylcholine is fast-acting and lasts for only a few minutes, which is very desirable in this setting. However, some people cannot use this medication as it can cause serious salt imbalances or reactions, so an equally effective medication without these side effects would be advantageous. One possible alternative medication is rocuronium, a muscle relaxant with fewer side effects but longer duration of action. This review compares the quality of intubation conditions (the ease with which physicians can quickly and safely pass the endotracheal tube) between rocuronium and succinylcholine in all ages and varying clinical situations." } ]
query-laysum	24148	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNeonates who have undergone gastrointestinal surgery are particularly susceptible to infectious complications in the postoperative period. This may be due in part to disruption of the integrity of the gut and its altered intestinal microflora. Lactoferrin is a whey protein found in milk and is an important innate mammalian defence mechanism. Lactoferrin has been reported to have antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. It has also been reported to help establish a healthy gut microflora and aid in the intestinal immune system. Lactoferrin supplementation has been reported to decrease sepsis in preterm infants. There may be a role for lactoferrin to reduce the incidence of sepsis, thus reducing morbidity and mortality and improving enteral feeding in postoperative term neonates.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of administering lactoferrin on the incidence of sepsis and mortality in term neonates after gastrointestinal surgery.\nThe secondary objective was to assess the impact of administering lactoferrin on time to full enteral feeds, the intestinal microflora, duration of hospital stay, and mortality before discharge in the same population.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Neonatal Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries. The date of the last search was February 2023. There were no restrictions to language, publication year or publication type. We checked references of potentially relevant studies and systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised controlled trials that studied infants born at 37 or more weeks of gestation who had one or more episodes of gastrointestinal surgery within 28 days of birth, and compared administration of lactoferrin with a placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified no published randomised controlled studies that assessed the efficacy of lactoferrin for the postoperative management of term neonates following gastrointestinal surgery.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no evidence available from randomised controlled trials to show whether lactoferrin is effective or ineffective for the postoperative management of term neonates after gastrointestinal surgery. There is a need for randomised controlled trials to be performed to assess the role of lactoferrin in this setting.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is lactoferrin?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Lactoferrin is a protein found in milk that can protect against infection. Lactoferrin supplements are available and have been researched in premature babies. There is some evidence that lactoferrin can prevent infection in premature babies." } ]
query-laysum	24149	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe treatment of choice for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) applied via a mask during sleep. However, this is not tolerated by all individuals and its role in mild OSA is not proven. Drug therapy has been proposed as an alternative to CPAP in some patients with mild to moderate sleep apnoea and could be of value in patients intolerant of CPAP. A number of mechanisms have been proposed by which drugs could reduce the severity of OSA. These include an increase in tone in the upper airway dilator muscles, an increase in ventilatory drive, a reduction in the proportion of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, an increase in cholinergic tone during sleep, an increase in arousal threshold, a reduction in airway resistance and a reduction in surface tension in the upper airway.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of drug therapies in the specific treatment of sleep apnoea.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Searches were current as of July 2012.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, placebo controlled trials involving adult patients with confirmed OSA. We excluded trials if continuous positive airways pressure, mandibular devices or oxygen therapy were used. We excluded studies investigating treatment of associated conditions such as excessive sleepiness, hypertension, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and obesity.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nThirty trials of 25 drugs, involving 516 participants, contributed data to the review. Drugs had several different proposed modes of action and the results were grouped accordingly in the review. Each of the studies stated that the participants had OSA but diagnostic criteria were not always explicit and it was possible that some patients with central apnoeas may have been recruited.\nAcetazolamide, eszopiclone, naltrexone, nasal lubricant (phosphocholinamine) and physiostigmine were administered for one to two nights only. Donepezil in patients with and without Alzheimer's disease, fluticasone in patients with allergic rhinitis, combinations of ondansetrone and fluoxetine and paroxetine were trials of one to three months duration, however most of the studies were small and had methodological limitations. The overall quality of the available evidence was low.\nThe primary outcomes for the systematic review were the apnoea hypopnoea index (AHI) and the level of sleepiness associated with OSA, estimated by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). AHI was reported in 25 studies and of these 10 showed statistically significant reductions in AHI.\nFluticasone in patients with allergic rhinitis was well tolerated and reduced the severity of sleep apnoea compared with placebo (AHI 23.3 versus 30.3; P < 0.05) and improved subjective daytime alertness. Excessive sleepiness was reported to be altered in four studies, however the only clinically and statistically significant change in ESS of -2.9 (SD 2.9; P = 0.04) along with a small but statistically significant reduction in AHI of -9.4 (SD 17.2; P = 0.03) was seen in patients without Alzheimer's disease receiving donepezil for one month. In 23 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease donepezil led to a significant reduction in AHI (donepezil 20 (SD 15) to 9.9 (SD 11.5) versus placebo 23.2 (SD 26.4) to 22.9 (SD 28.8); P = 0.035) after three months of treatment but no reduction in sleepiness was reported. High dose combined treatment with ondansetron 24 mg and fluoxetine 10 mg showed a 40.5% decrease in AHI from the baseline at treatment day 28. Paroxetine was shown to reduce AHI compared to placebo (-6.10 events/hour; 95% CI -11.00 to -1.20) but failed to improve daytime symptoms.\nPromising results from the preliminary mirtazapine study failed to be reproduced in the two more recent multicentre trials and, moreover, the use of mirtazapine was associated with significant weight gain and sleepiness. Few data were presented on the long-term tolerability of any of the compounds used.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of drug therapy in the treatment of OSA. Small studies have reported positive effects of certain agents on short-term outcomes. Certain agents have been shown to reduce the AHI in largely unselected populations with OSA by between 24% and 45%. For donepezil and fluticasone, studies of longer duration with a larger population and better matching of groups are required to establish whether the change in AHI and impact on daytime symptoms are reproducible. Individual patients had more complete responses to particular drugs. It is possible that better matching of drugs to patients according to the dominant mechanism of their OSA will lead to better results and this also needs further study.\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": "Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is caused by collapse of the upper airway. The mainstay of medical treatment is continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP), delivered through a mask during sleep, aiming to keep the airway opened. Drug therapy has been proposed for individuals with mild OSA and those intolerant of CPAP." } ]
query-laysum	24150	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDevelopmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) describes the abnormal development of a hip in childhood, ranging from complete dislocation of the hip joint to subtle immaturity of a hip that is enlocated and stable within the socket. DDH occurs in around 10 per 1000 live births, though only one per 1000 are completely dislocated. There is variation in treatment pathways for DDH, which differs between hospitals and even between clinicians within the same hospital. The variation is related to the severity of dysplasia that is believed to require treatment, and the techniques used to treat dysplasia.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of splinting and the optimal treatment strategy for the non-operative management of DDH in babies under six months of age.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other electronic databases, and two trials registers up to November 2021. We also checked reference lists, contacted study authors, and handsearched relevant meetings abstracts.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs, as well as non-RCTs and cohort studies conducted after 1980 were included. Participants were babies with all severities of DDH who were under six months of age. Interventions included dynamic splints (e.g. Pavlik harness), static splints (e.g Fixed abduction brace) or double nappies (diapers), compared to no splinting or delayed splinting.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments. The primary outcomes were: measurement of acetabular index at years one, two and five, as determined by radiographs (angle): the need for operative intervention to achieve reduction and to address dysplasia; and complications. We also investigated other outcomes highlighted by parents as important, including the bond between parent and child and the ability of mothers to breastfeed.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs or quasi-RCTs (576 babies). These were supported by 16 non-RCTs (8237 babies). Five studies had non-commercial funding, three studies stated 'no funding' and 14 studies did not state funding source. The RCTs were generally at unclear risk of bias, although we judged three RCTs to be at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. The non-RCTs were of moderate and critical risk of bias. We did not undertake meta-analysis due to methodological and clinical differences between studies; instead, we have summarised the results narratively.\nDynamic splinting versus delayed or no splinting\nFour RCTs and nine non-RCTs compared immediate dynamic splinting and delayed dynamic splinting or no splinting. Of the RCTs, two considered stable hips and one considered unstable (dislocatable) hips and one jointly considered unstable and stable hips. No studies considered only dislocated hips.\nTwo RCTs (265 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported acetabular index at one year amongst stable or dislocatable hips. Both studies found there may be no evidence of a difference in splinting stable hips at first diagnosis compared to a strategy of active surveillance: one reported a mean difference (MD) of 0.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.74 to 0.94), and the other an MD of 0.20 (95% CI −1.65 to 2.05). Two RCTs of stable hips (181 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported there may be no evidence of a difference between groups for acetabular index at two years: one study reported an MD of −1.90 (95% CI −4.76 to 0.96), and another study reported an MD of −0.10 (95% CI −1.93 to 1.73), but did not take into account hips from the same child. No study reported data at five years.\nFour RCTs (434 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported the need for surgical intervention. Three studies reported that no surgical interventions occurred. In the remaining study, two babies in the dynamic splinting group developed instability and were subsequently treated surgically. This study did not explicitly state if this treatment was to achieve concentric reduction or address residual dysplasia.\nThree RCTs (390 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported no complications (avascular necrosis and femoral nerve palsy).\nDynamic splinting versus static splinting\nOne RCT and five non-RCTs compared dynamic versus static splinting. The RCT (118 hips) reported no occurrences of avascular necrosis (very low-certainty evidence) and did not report radiological outcomes or need for operative intervention.\nOne quasi-RCT compared double nappies versus delayed or no splinting but reported no outcomes of interest.\nOther comparisons\nNo RCTs compared static splinting versus delayed or no splinting or staged weaning versus immediate removal.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a paucity of RCT evidence for splinting for the non-operative management of DDH: we included only six RCTs with 576 babies. Moreover, there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, precluding meta-analysis. We judged the RCT evidence for all primary outcomes as being of very low certainty, meaning we are very uncertain about the true effects.\nResults from individual studies provide limited evidence of intervention effects on different severities of DDH. Amongst stable dysplastic hips, there was no evidence to suggest that treatment at any stage expedited the development of the acetabulum. For dislocatable hips, a delay in treatment onset to six weeks does not appear to result in any evidence of a difference in the development of the acetabulum at one year or increased risk of surgery. However, delayed splinting may reduce the number of babies requiring treatment with a harness.\nNo RCTs compared static splinting with delayed or no splinting, staged weaning versus immediate removal or double nappies versus delayed or no splinting.\nThere were few operative interventions or complications amongst the RCTs and the non-randomised studies. There's no apparent signal to indicate a higher frequency of either outcome in either intervention group.\nGiven the frequency of this disease, and the fact that many countries undertake mandatory DDH screening, there is a clear need to develop an evidence-based pathway for treatment. Particular uncertainties requiring future research are the effectiveness of splinting amongst stable dysplastic hips, the optimal timing for the onset of splinting, the optimal type of splint to use and the need for 'weaning of splints'. Only once a robust pathway for treatment is established, can we properly assess the cost-effectiveness of screening interventions for DDH.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Comparing immediate dynamic splinting to delayed dynamic or no splinting\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Four studies compared dynamic splinting at first diagnosis with a strategy of waiting up to 12 weeks after diagnosis before starting treatment. Two studies looked at stable shallow hips, one at unstable shallow hips and one at a combination of both. None of the studies considered dislocated hips.\nAmongst hips that were not dislocated, two studies showed no clear evidence of a difference in the development of the socket at one year by delaying the initial treatment. Furthermore, two studies of stable hips showed that the development of the socket was no different at two years by delaying the initial treatment. No studies reported results at five years after treatment.\nDelaying the start of treatment did not increase the number of complications or the rates of later surgery in three studies. One study identified two babies who required surgery in the dynamic splinting group.\nTwo studies looked at an important complication called 'avascular necrosis', where the blood supply to the hip is damaged. No hips were affected by this in either study." } ]
query-laysum	24151	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMost people with Parkinson’s disease (PD) experience at least one fall during the course of their disease. Several interventions designed to reduce falls have been studied. An up-to-date synthesis of evidence for interventions to reduce falls in people with PD will assist with informed decisions regarding fall-prevention interventions for people with PD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions designed to reduce falls in people with PD.\nSearch methods\nCENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers were searched on 16 July 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also conducted a top-up search on 13 October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aimed to reduce falls in people with PD and reported the effect on falls. We excluded interventions that aimed to reduce falls due to syncope.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane Review procedures. Primary outcomes were rate of falls and number of people who fell at least once. Secondary outcomes were the number of people sustaining one or more fall-related fractures, quality of life, adverse events and economic outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nThis review includes 32 studies with 3370 participants randomised. We included 25 studies of exercise interventions (2700 participants), three studies of medication interventions (242 participants), one study of fall-prevention education (53 participants) and three studies of exercise plus education (375 participants). Overall, participants in the exercise trials and the exercise plus education trials had mild to moderate PD, while participants in the medication trials included those with more advanced disease. All studies had a high or unclear risk of bias in one or more items. Illustrative risks demonstrating the absolute impact of each intervention are presented in the summary of findings tables.\nTwelve studies compared exercise (all types) with a control intervention (an intervention not thought to reduce falls, such as usual care or sham exercise) in people with mild to moderate PD. Exercise probably reduces the rate of falls by 26% (rate ratio (RaR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.87; 1456 participants, 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Exercise probably slightly reduces the number of people experiencing one or more falls by 10% (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 932 participants, 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether exercise makes little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more fall-related fractures (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.17; 989 participants, 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Exercise may slightly improve health-related quality of life immediately following the intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.17, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.01; 951 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise has an effect on adverse events or whether exercise is a cost-effective intervention for fall prevention.\nThree studies trialled a cholinesterase inhibitor (rivastigmine or donepezil). Cholinesterase inhibitors may reduce the rate of falls by 50% (RaR 0.50, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.58; 229 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain if this medication makes little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more falls (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 230 participants, 3 studies) and to health-related quality of life (EQ5D Thermometer mean difference (MD) 3.00, 95% CI -3.06 to 9.06; very low-certainty evidence). Cholinesterase inhibitors may increase the rate of non fall-related adverse events by 60% (RaR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.01; 175 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Most adverse events were mild and transient in nature. No data was available regarding the cost-effectiveness of medication for fall prevention.\nWe are uncertain of the effect of education compared to a control intervention on the number of people who fell at least once (RR 10.89, 95% CI 1.26 to 94.03; 53 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and no data were available for the other outcomes of interest for this comparisonWe are also uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether exercise combined with education makes little or no difference to the number of falls (RaR 0.46, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.85; 320 participants, 2 studies), the number of people sustaining fall-related fractures (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.32,320 participants, 2 studies), or health-related quality of life (PDQ39 MD 0.05, 95% CI -3.12 to 3.23, 305 participants, 2 studies). Exercise plus education may make little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more falls (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; 352 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise combined with education has an effect on adverse events or is a cost-effective intervention for fall prevention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise interventions probably reduce the rate of falls, and probably slightly reduce the number of people falling in people with mild to moderate PD.\nCholinesterase inhibitors may reduce the rate of falls, but we are uncertain if they have an effect on the number of people falling. The decision to use these medications needs to be balanced against the risk of non fall-related adverse events, though these adverse events were predominantly mild or transient in nature.\nFurther research in the form of large, high-quality RCTs are required to determine the relative impact of different types of exercise and different levels of supervision on falls, and how this could be influenced by disease severity. Further work is also needed to increase the certainty of the effects of medication and further explore falls prevention education interventions both delivered alone and in combination with exercise.\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": "In people with PD, the emergence of frequent falls is one of the most serious disease milestones. Information about effective fall-prevention strategies will aid the implementation of fall-prevention interventions." } ]
query-laysum	24152	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer) is classified in many ways. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) group staging classifies the cancer based on patient's life expectancy. People with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma have single tumour or three tumours of maximum diameter of 3 cm or less, Child-Pugh status A to B, and performance status 0 (fully functional). Management of hepatocellular carcinoma is uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions used in the treatment of early or very early hepatocellular carcinoma through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus sham or no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to September 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on hepatocellular carcinoma.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in participants with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis, portal hypertension, aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma, size and number of the tumours, and future remnant liver volume. We excluded trials including participants who were previously liver transplanted. We considered interventions compared with each other, sham, or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe calculated the odds ratio, mean difference, rate ratio, or hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed the risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis using Stata, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nEighteen trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Four trials (593 participants; 574 participants included for one or more analyses) compared surgery versus radiofrequency ablation in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, eligible to undergo surgery. Fourteen trials (2533 participants; 2494 participants included for various analyses) compared different non-surgical interventions in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, not eligible to undergo surgery. Overall, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes for both comparisons.\nSurgery versus radiofrequency ablation\nThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. The trials did not report the participants' portal hypertension status or whether they received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 29 months to 42 months (3 trials).\nThere was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for surgery versus radiofrequency ablation (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.08; 574 participants; 4 trials; I2 = 68). Cancer-related mortality was lower in the surgery group (20/115 (17.4%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (43/115 (37.4%)) (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.65; 230 participants; 1 trial). Serious adverse events (number of participants) was higher in the surgery group (14/60 (23.3%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (1/60 (1.7%)) (odds ratio 17.96, 95% CI 2.28 to 141.60; 120 participants; 1 trial). The number of serious adverse events was higher in the surgery group (adjusted rate 11.3 events per 100 participants) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (3/186 (1.6 events per 100 participants)) (rate ratio 7.02, 95% CI 2.29 to 21.46; 391 participants; 2 trials; I2 = 0%). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. One trial was funded by a party with vested interests; three trials were funded by parties without any vested.\nNon-surgical interventions\nThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. Most trials did not report the portal hypertension status of the participants, and none of the trials reported whether the participants received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 6 months to 37 months (11 trials). Trial participants, who were not eligible for surgery, were treated with radiofrequency ablation, laser ablation, microwave ablation, percutaneous acetic acid injection, percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with systemic chemotherapy, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with percutaneous alcohol injection, or a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with radiofrequency ablation.\nThe mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous acetic acid injection (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.79; 125 participants; 1 trial) and percutaneous alcohol injection (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.88; 882 participants; 5 trials; I2 = 57%) groups compared with the radiofrequency ablation group. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for any of the other comparisons. The proportion of people with cancer-related mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous alcohol injection group (adjusted proportion 16.8%) compared with the radiofrequency ablation group (20/232 (8.6%)) (odds ratio 2.18, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.89; 458 participants; 3 trials; I2 = 0%). There was no evidence of a difference in any of the comparisons that reported serious adverse events (number of participants or number of events). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Five trials were funded by parties without any vested interest; the source of funding was not available in the remaining trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence was of low or very low quality. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up between surgery and radiofrequency ablation in people eligible for surgery. All-cause mortality at maximal follow-up was higher with percutaneous acetic acid injection and percutaneous alcohol injection than with radiofrequency ablation in people not eligible for surgery. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for the other comparisons. High-quality RCTs designed to assess clinically important differences in all-cause mortality and health-related quality of life, and having an adequate follow-up period (approximately five years) are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics of included trials\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Four trials (593 participants; 574 participants included for one or more analyses) compared surgery (removal of part of the liver containing cancer) versus radiofrequency ablation (cancer destruction using heat generated by electric current) in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, eligible to undergo surgery; and 14 trials (2533 participants; 2494 participants included for various analyses) compared different non-surgical interventions in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, not eligible to undergo surgery." } ]
query-laysum	24153	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany dental procedures produce aerosols (droplets, droplet nuclei and splatter) that harbour various pathogenic micro-organisms and may pose a risk for the spread of infections between dentist and patient. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to greater concern about this risk.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of methods used during dental treatment procedures to minimize aerosol production and reduce or neutralize contamination in aerosols.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist searched the following databases on 17 September 2020: Cochrane Oral Health’s Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946); Embase Ovid (from 1980); the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) performed by dental healthcare providers that evaluated methods to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics (excluding preprocedural mouthrinses). The primary outcomes were incidence of infection in dental staff or patients, and reduction in volume and level of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment. The secondary outcomes were cost, accessibility and feasibility.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened search results, extracted data from the included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data. We assessed heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included 16 studies with 425 participants aged 5 to 69 years. Eight studies had high risk of bias; eight had unclear risk of bias. No studies measured infection. All studies measured bacterial contamination using the surrogate outcome of colony-forming units (CFU). Two studies measured contamination per volume of air sampled at different distances from the patient's mouth, and 14 studies sampled particles on agar plates at specific distances from the patient's mouth.\nThe results presented below should be interpreted with caution as the evidence is very low certainty due to heterogeneity, risk of bias, small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. Moreover, we do not know the 'minimal clinically important difference' in CFU.\nHigh-volume evacuator\nUse of a high-volume evacuator (HVE) may reduce bacterial contamination in aerosols less than one foot (~ 30 cm) from a patient's mouth (MD −47.41, 95% CI −92.76 to −2.06; 3 split-mouth RCTs, 122 participants; very high heterogeneity I² = 95%), but not at longer distances (MD −1.00, −2.56 to 0.56; 1 RCT, 80 participants).\nOne split-mouth RCT (six participants) found that HVE may not be more effective than conventional dental suction (saliva ejector or low-volume evacuator) at 40 cm (MD CFU −2.30, 95% CI −5.32 to 0.72) or 150 cm (MD −2.20, 95% CI −14.01 to 9.61).\nDental isolation combination system\nOne RCT (50 participants) found that there may be no difference in CFU between a combination system (Isolite) and a saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) during AGPs (MD −0.31, 95% CI −0.82 to 0.20) or after AGPs (MD −0.35, −0.99 to 0.29). However, an 'n of 1' design study showed that the combination system may reduce CFU compared with rubber dam plus HVE (MD −125.20, 95% CI −174.02 to −76.38) or HVE (MD −109.30, 95% CI −153.01 to −65.59).\nRubber dam\nOne split-mouth RCT (10 participants) receiving dental treatment, found that there may be a reduction in CFU with rubber dam at one-metre (MD −16.20, 95% CI −19.36 to −13.04) and two-metre distance (MD −11.70, 95% CI −15.82 to −7.58). One RCT of 47 dental students found use of rubber dam may make no difference in CFU at the forehead (MD 0.98, 95% CI −0.73 to 2.70) and occipital region of the operator (MD 0.77, 95% CI −0.46 to 2.00).\nOne split-mouth RCT (21 participants) found that rubber dam plus HVE may reduce CFU more than cotton roll plus HVE on the patient's chest (MD −251.00, 95% CI −267.95 to −234.05) and dental unit light (MD −12.70, 95% CI −12.85 to −12.55).\nAir cleaning systems\nOne split-mouth CCT (two participants) used a local stand-alone air cleaning system (ACS), which may reduce aerosol contamination during cavity preparation (MD −66.70 CFU, 95% CI −120.15 to −13.25 per cubic metre) or ultrasonic scaling (MD −32.40, 95% CI - 51.55 to −13.25).\nAnother CCT (50 participants) found that laminar flow in the dental clinic combined with a HEPA filter may reduce contamination approximately 76 cm from the floor (MD −483.56 CFU, 95% CI −550.02 to −417.10 per cubic feet per minute per patient) and 20 cm to 30 cm from the patient's mouth (MD −319.14 CFU, 95% CI - 385.60 to −252.68).\nDisinfectants ‒ antimicrobial coolants\nTwo RCTs evaluated use of antimicrobial coolants during ultrasonic scaling. Compared with distilled water, coolant containing chlorhexidine (CHX), cinnamon extract coolant or povidone iodine may reduce CFU: CHX (MD −124.00, 95% CI −135.78 to −112.22; 20 participants), povidone iodine (MD −656.45, 95% CI −672.74 to −640.16; 40 participants), cinnamon (MD −644.55, 95% CI −668.70 to −620.40; 40 participants). CHX coolant may reduce CFU more than povidone iodine (MD −59.30, 95% CI −64.16 to −54.44; 20 participants), but not more than cinnamon extract (MD −11.90, 95% CI −35.88 to 12.08; 40 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no studies that evaluated disease transmission via aerosols in a dental setting; and no evidence about viral contamination in aerosols.\nAll of the included studies measured bacterial contamination using colony-forming units. There appeared to be some benefit from the interventions evaluated but the available evidence is very low certainty so we are unable to draw reliable conclusions.\nWe did not find any studies on methods such as ventilation, ionization, ozonisation, UV light and fogging.\nStudies are needed that measure contamination in aerosols, size distribution of aerosols and infection transmission risk for respiratory diseases such as COVID-19 in dental patients and staff.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence in this Cochrane Review is current to September 2020." } ]
query-laysum	24154	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for AOM varies from 56% in the Netherlands to 95% in the USA, Canada and Australia. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 1997 and previously updated in 1999, 2005, 2009 and 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antibiotics for children with AOM.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to April week 3, 2015), OLDMEDLINE (1958 to 1965), EMBASE (January 1990 to April 2015), Current Contents (1966 to April 2015), CINAHL (2008 to April 2015) and LILACS (2008 to April 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1) antimicrobial drugs with placebo and 2) immediate antibiotic treatment with expectant observation (including delayed antibiotic prescribing) in children with AOM.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.\nMain results\nFor the review of antibiotics against placebo, 13 RCTs (3401 children and 3938 AOM episodes) from high-income countries were eligible and had generally low risk of bias. The combined results of the trials revealed that by 24 hours from the start of treatment, 60% of the children had recovered whether or not they had placebo or antibiotics. Pain was not reduced by antibiotics at 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.01) but almost a third fewer had residual pain at two to three days (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.86; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20). A quarter fewer had pain at four to seven days (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.91; NNTB 16) and two-thirds fewer had pain at 10 to 12 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66; NNTB 7) compared with placebo. Antibiotics did reduce the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; NNTB 11), at six to eight weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; NNTB 16) and the number of children with tympanic membrane perforations (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76; NNTB 33) and halved contralateral otitis episodes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95; NNTB 11) compared with placebo. However, antibiotics neither reduced the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.24) nor the number of children with late AOM recurrences (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10) when compared with placebo. Severe complications were rare and did not differ between children treated with antibiotics and those treated with placebo. Adverse events (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) occurred more often in children taking antibiotics (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 14). Funnel plots do not suggest publication bias. Individual patient data meta-analysis of a subset of included trials found antibiotics to be most beneficial in children aged less than two years with bilateral AOM, or with both AOM and otorrhoea.\nFor the review of immediate antibiotics against expectant observation, five trials (1149 children) from high-income countries were eligible and had low to moderate risk of bias. Four trials (1007 children) reported outcome data that could be used for this review. From these trials, data from 959 children could be extracted for the meta-analysis of pain at three to seven days. No difference in pain was detectable at three to seven days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12). One trial (247 children) reported data on pain at 11 to 14 days. Immediate antibiotics were not associated with a reduction in the number of children with pain (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10) compared with expectant observation. Additionally, no differences in the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at four weeks, tympanic membrane perforations and AOM recurrence were observed between groups. No serious complications occurred in either the antibiotic or the expectant observation group. Immediate antibiotics were associated with a substantial increased risk of vomiting, diarrhoea or rash compared with expectant observation (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.36; NNTH 9).\nResults from an individual patient data meta-analysis including data from six high-quality trials (1643 children) that were also included as individual trials in our review showed that antibiotics seem to be most beneficial in children younger than two years of age with bilateral AOM (NNTB 4) and in children with both AOM and otorrhoea (NNTB 3).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review reveals that antibiotics have no early effect on pain, a slight effect on pain in the days following and only a modest effect on the number of children with tympanic perforations, contralateral otitis episodes and abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks and at six to eight weeks compared with placebo in children with AOM. In high-income countries, most cases of AOM spontaneously remit without complications. The benefits of antibiotics must be weighed against the possible harms: for every 14 children treated with antibiotics one child experienced an adverse event (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) that would not have occurred if antibiotics were withheld. Therefore clinical management should emphasise advice about adequate analgesia and the limited role for antibiotics. Antibiotics are most useful in children under two years of age with bilateral AOM, or with both AOM and otorrhoea. For most other children with mild disease in high-income countries, an expectant observational approach seems justified.\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 high for most of the outcomes in the review of antibiotics against placebo (this means that further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect).\nFor the review of immediate antibiotics versus expectant observation, we judged the evidence to be of moderate quality for most of the outcomes (this means that further research is likely to have an important impact on how confident we are in the results and may change those results). Quality was affected by concerns about sample size (perforation of the eardrum, rare complications) and the large number of children who are 'lost to follow-up' (pain at days 11 to 14, hearing loss at four weeks and late AOM recurrences)." } ]
query-laysum	24155	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTrauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) is a disorder of the blood clotting process that occurs soon after trauma injury. A diagnosis of TIC on admission is associated with increased mortality rates, increased burdens of transfusion, greater risks of complications and longer stays in critical care. Current diagnostic testing follows local hospital processes and normally involves conventional coagulation tests including prothrombin time ratio/international normalized ratio (PTr/INR), activated partial prothrombin time and full blood count. In some centres, thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) are standard tests, but in the UK they are more commonly used in research settings.\nObjectives\nThe objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) for TIC in adult trauma patients with bleeding, using a reference standard of prothrombin time ratio and/or the international normalized ratio.\nSearch methods\nWe ran the search on 4 March 2013. Searches ran from 1970 to current. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE Classic and EMBASE, eleven other databases, the web, and clinical trials registers. The Cochrane Injuries Group's specialised register was not searched for this review as it does not contain diagnostic test accuracy studies. We also screened reference lists, conducted forward citation searches and contacted authors.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all cross-sectional studies investigating the diagnostic test accuracy of TEG and ROTEM in patients with clinically suspected TIC, as well as case-control studies. Participants were adult trauma patients in both military and civilian settings. TIC was defined as a PTr/INR reading of 1.2 or greater, or 1.5 or greater.\nData collection and analysis\nWe piloted and performed all review stages in duplicate, including quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool, adhering to guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. We analysed sensitivity and specificity of included studies narratively as there were insufficient studies to perform a meta-analysis.\nMain results\nThree studies were included in the final analysis. All three studies used ROTEM as the test of global haemostatic function, and none of the studies used TEG. Tissue factor-activated assay EXTEM clot amplitude (CA) was the focus of the accuracy measurements in blood samples taken near to the point of admission. These CAs were not taken at a uniform time after the start of the coagulopathic trace; the time varied from five minutes, to ten minutes and fifteen minutes. The three included studies were conducted in the UK, France and Afghanistan in both civilian and military trauma settings. In two studies, median Injury Severity Scores were 12, inter-quartile range (IQR) 4 to 24; and 22, IQR 12 to 34; and in one study the median New Injury Severity Score was 34, IQR 17 to 43.\nThere were insufficient included studies examining each of the three ROTEM CAs at 5, 10 and 15 minutes to make meta-analysis and investigation of heterogeneity valid. The results of the included studies are thus reported narratively and illustrated by a forest plot and results plotted on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plane.\nFor CA5 the accuracy results were sensitivity 70% (95% CI 47% to 87%) and specificity 86% (95% CI 82% to 90%) for one study, and sensitivity 96% (95% CI 88% to 100%) and specificity 58% (95% CI 44% to 72%) for the other.\nFor CA10 the accuracy results were sensitivity 100% (95% CI 94% to 100%) and specificity 70% (95% CI 56% to 82%).\nFor CA15 the accuracy results were sensitivity 88% (95% CI 69% to 97%) and specificity 100% (95% CI 94% to 100%).\nNo uninterpretable ROTEM study results were mentioned in any of the included studies.\nRisk of bias and concerns around applicability of findings was low across all studies for the patient and flow and timing domains. However, risk of bias and concerns around applicability of findings for the index test domain was either high or unclear, and the risk of bias for the reference standard domain was high. This raised concerns around the interpretation of the sensitivity and specificity results of the included studies, which may be misleading.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence on the accuracy of TEG and very little evidence on the accuracy of ROTEM. The value of accuracy estimates are considerably undermined by the small number of included studies, and concerns about risk of bias relating to the index test and the reference standard. We recognise that the reference standards of PT and INR are imperfect, but in the absence of embedded clinical consensus these are judged to be the best reflection of current clinical practice. We are unable to offer advice on the use of global measures of haemostatic function for trauma based on the evidence on test accuracy identified in this systematic review. This evidence strongly suggests that at present these tests should only be used for research. We consider more thoroughly what this research could be in the Discussion section.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The purpose of this research\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The purpose of this research was to determine how good the TEG and ROTEM assessments are at diagnosing TIC in adult trauma patients who are bleeding. The accuracy of TEG and ROTEM was compared against another test that is currently used (the reference standard), which was the prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PTr/INR)." } ]
query-laysum	24156	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn response to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments have implemented a variety of measures to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. Among these, have been measures to control the pandemic in primary and secondary school settings.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the different types of measures implemented in school settings and the outcomes used to measure their impacts on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilisation outcomes, other health outcomes as well as societal, economic, and ecological outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Educational Resources Information Center, as well as COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease (indexing preprints) on 9 December 2020. We conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered experimental (i.e. randomised controlled trials; RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome categories were (i) transmission-related outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of cases); (ii) healthcare utilisation outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of hospitalisations); (iii) other health outcomes (e.g. physical, social and mental health); and (iv) societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. costs, human resources and education). We considered studies that included any population at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and/or developing COVID-19 disease including students, teachers, other school staff, or members of the wider community.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author extracted data and critically appraised each study. One additional review author validated the extracted data. To critically appraise included studies, we used the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental and observational studies, the QUADAS-2 tool for observational screening studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. Three review authors made an initial assessment of the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed and agreed on the ratings.\nMain results\nWe included 38 unique studies in the analysis, comprising 33 modelling studies, three observational studies, one quasi-experimental and one experimental study with modelling components.\nMeasures fell into four broad categories: (i) measures reducing the opportunity for contacts; (ii) measures making contacts safer; (iii) surveillance and response measures; and (iv) multicomponent measures. As comparators, we encountered the operation of schools with no measures in place, less intense measures in place, single versus multicomponent measures in place, or closure of schools.\nAcross all intervention categories and all study designs, very low- to low-certainty evidence ratings limit our confidence in the findings. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the model structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to deviations from intended interventions or missing data. Across all categories, few studies reported on implementation or described how measures were implemented. Where we describe effects as 'positive', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention(s); 'negative' effects do not favour the intervention.\nWe found 23 modelling studies assessing measures reducing the opportunity for contacts (i.e. alternating attendance, reduced class size). Most of these studies assessed transmission and healthcare utilisation outcomes, and all of these studies showed a reduction in transmission (e.g. a reduction in the number or proportion of cases, reproduction number) and healthcare utilisation (i.e. fewer hospitalisations) and mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe identified 11 modelling studies and two observational studies assessing measures making contacts safer (i.e. mask wearing, cleaning, handwashing, ventilation). Five studies assessed the impact of combined measures to make contacts safer. They assessed transmission-related, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, and a reduction in hospitalisations; however, studies showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe identified 13 modelling studies and one observational study assessing surveillance and response measures , including testing and isolation, and symptomatic screening and isolation. Twelve studies focused on mass testing and isolation measures, while two looked specifically at symptom-based screening and isolation. Outcomes included transmission, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed effects in favour of the intervention in terms of reductions in transmission and hospitalisations, however some showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe found three studies that reported outcomes relating to multicomponent measures , where it was not possible to disaggregate the effects of each individual intervention, including one modelling, one observational and one quasi-experimental study. These studies employed interventions, such as physical distancing, modification of school activities, testing, and exemption of high-risk students, using measures such as hand hygiene and mask wearing. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, however some showed mixed or no effects.\nAs the majority of studies included in the review were modelling studies, there was a lack of empirical, real-world data, which meant that there were very little data on the actual implementation of interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review suggests that a broad range of measures implemented in the school setting can have positive impacts on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and on healthcare utilisation outcomes related to COVID-19. The certainty of the evidence for most intervention-outcome combinations is very low, and the true effects of these measures are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Measures implemented in the school setting may limit the number or proportion of cases and deaths, and may delay the progression of the pandemic. However, they may also lead to negative unintended consequences, such as fewer days spent in school (beyond those intended by the intervention). Further, most studies assessed the effects of a combination of interventions, which could not be disentangled to estimate their specific effects. Studies assessing measures to reduce contacts and to make contacts safer consistently predicted positive effects on transmission and healthcare utilisation, but may reduce the number of days students spent at school. Studies assessing surveillance and response measures predicted reductions in hospitalisations and school days missed due to infection or quarantine, however, there was mixed evidence on resources needed for surveillance. Evidence on multicomponent measures was mixed, mostly due to comparators. The magnitude of effects depends on multiple factors. New studies published since the original search date might heavily influence the overall conclusions and interpretation of findings for this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"1. Measures reducing the opportunity for contacts\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Measures reducing the opportunity for contacts\nWe found 23 modelling studies assessing measures to reduce the opportunity for contacts. All studies showed reductions in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 and the use of the healthcare system. Some studies also showed a reduction in the number of days spent in school due to the intervention." } ]
query-laysum	24157	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEpidural analgesia in labour prolongs the second stage and increases instrumental delivery. It has been suggested that a more upright maternal position during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright or recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 June 2018), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-randomised controlled trials would have been eligible for inclusion but we found none. Studies published in abstract form only were also eligible.\nWe assumed the experimental intervention to be maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control condition of remaining in any recumbent position.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nWe carried out a planned sensitivity analysis of the three studies with low risks of bias for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data reporting, and further excluded one study with a co-intervention (this was not prespecified).\nMain results\nWe include eight randomised controlled trials, involving 4464 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions in this update. Five were conducted in the UK, one in France and two in Spain.\nThe largest UK trial accounted for three-quarters of all review participants, and we judged it to have low risk of bias. We assessed two other trials as being at low risk of selection and attrition bias. We rated four studies at unclear or high risk of bias for both selection and attrition bias and one study as high risk of bias due to a co-intervention. The trials varied in their comparators, with five studies comparing different positions (upright and recumbent), two comparing ambulation with (recumbent) non-ambulation, and one study comparing postural changes guided by a physiotherapist to a recumbent position.\nOverall, there may be little or no difference between upright and recumbent positions for our combined primary outcome of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal): average risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07; 8 trials, 4316 women; I2 = 78%; low-quality evidence. It is uncertain whether the upright position has any impact on caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 8 trials, 4316 women; I2 = 47%; very low-quality evidence), instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 8 trials, 4316 women; I2 = 69%) and the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 6.00 minutes, 95% CI −37.46 to 49.46; 3 trials, 456 women; I2 = 96%), because we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for these outcomes. Maternal position in the second stage of labour probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), (PPH requiring blood transfusion): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72; 1 trial, 3093 women; moderate-quality evidence. Maternal satisfaction with the overall childbirth experience was slightly lower in the upright group: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99; 1 trial, 2373 women. Fewer babies were born with low cord pH in the upright group: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90; 2 trials, 3159 infants; moderate-quality evidence.\nThe results were less clear for other maternal or fetal outcomes, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; 3 trials, 3266 women; I2 = 46%; low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; 1 trial, 107 women; very low-quality evidence), or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; 1 trial, 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around some of these estimates were wide, and we cannot rule out clinically important effects.\nIn our sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias, upright positions increase the chance of women having an operative birth: RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence. In absolute terms, this equates to 63 more operative births per 1000 women (from 17 more to 115 more). This increase appears to be due to the increase in caesarean section in the upright group (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.57; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence), which equates to 25 more caesarean sections per 1000 women (from 4 more to 49 more). In the sensitivity analysis there was no clear impact on instrumental vaginal births: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 3 trials, 3609 women; low-quality evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere may be little or no difference in operative birth between women who adopt recumbent or supine positions during the second stage of labour with an epidural analgesia. However, the studies are heterogeneous, probably related to differing study designs and interventions, differing adherence to the allocated intervention and possible selection and attrition bias. Sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias indicated that recumbent positions may reduce the need for operative birth and caesarean section, without increasing instrumental delivery. Mothers may be more satisfied with their experience of childbirth by adopting a recumbent position. The studies in this review looked at left or right lateral and semi-recumbent positions. Recumbent positions such as flat on the back or lithotomy are not generally used due to the possibility of aorto-caval compression, although we acknowledge that these recumbent positions were not the focus of trials included in this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "An epidural is the most effective method for pain relief in labour. It is popular, even though it may increase the length of the labour and the use of forceps and vacuum (ventouse) to assist the birth. Such instrumental births can cause later prolapse, urine leakage, or painful sexual intercourse. In recent years low-dose techniques, also known as 'walking' or 'mobile' epidurals, have become popular. The low doses allow women to be more mobile during their labour and make it easier to assume an upright position. It has been suggested that such an upright position can make birth easier." } ]
query-laysum	24158	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDementia is a worldwide concern. Its global prevalence is increasing. Currently, no effective medical treatment exists to cure or to delay the onset of cognitive decline or dementia. Up to 40% of dementia is attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors, which has led to the notion that targeting these risk factors might reduce the incidence of cognitive decline and dementia. Since sporadic dementia is a multifactorial condition, thought to derive from multiple causes and risk factors, multi-domain interventions may be more effective for the prevention of dementia than those targeting single risk factors.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of multi-domain interventions for the prevention of cognitive decline and dementia in older adults, including both unselected populations and populations at increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 28 April 2021. We also reviewed citations of reference lists of included studies, landmark papers, and review papers to identify additional studies and assessed their suitability for inclusion in the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe defined a multi-domain intervention as an intervention with more than one component, pharmacological or non-pharmacological, but not consisting only of two or more drugs with the same therapeutic target. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of such an intervention on cognitive functioning and/or incident dementia. We accepted as control conditions any sham intervention or usual care, but not single-domain interventions intended to reduce dementia risk. We required studies to have a minimum of 400 participants and an intervention and follow-up duration of at least 12 months.\nData collection and analysis\nWe initially screened search results using a ‘crowdsourcing’ method in which members of Cochrane’s citizen science platform identify RCTs. We screened the identified citations against inclusion criteria by two review authors working independently. At least two review authors also independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. We defined high-certainty reviews as trials with a low risk of bias across all domains other than blinding of participants and personnel involved in administering the intervention (because lifestyle interventions are difficult to blind). Critical outcomes were incident dementia, incident mild cognitive impairment (MCI), cognitive decline measured with any validated measure, and mortality. Important outcomes included adverse events (e.g. cardiovascular events), quality of life, and activities of daily living (ADL). Where appropriate, we synthesised data in random-effects meta-analyses. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs (18.452 participants) in this review. Two studies reported incident dementia as an outcome; all nine studies reported a measure for cognitive functioning. Assessment of cognitive functioning was very heterogeneous across studies, ranging from complete neuropsychological assessments to short screening tests such as the mini-mental state examination (MMSE). The duration of the interventions varied from 12 months to 10 years.\nWe compared multi-domain interventions against usual care or a sham intervention. Positive MDs and RRs <1 favour multi-domain interventions over control interventions. For incident dementia, there was no evidence of a difference between the multi-domain intervention group and the control group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 2 studies; 7256 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was a small difference in composite Z-score for cognitive function measured with a neuropsychological test battery (NTB) (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.06; 3 studies; 4617 participants; high-certainty evidence) and with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale (MD 0.76 point, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.46; 2 studies; 1554 participants), but the certainty of evidence for the MoCA was very low (due to serious risk of bias, inconsistency and indirectness) and there was no evidence of an effect on the MMSE (MD 0.02 point, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 6 studies; 8697participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of an effect on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 4 studies; 11,487 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nThere was high-certainty evidence for an interaction of the multi-domain intervention with ApoE4 status on the outcome of cognitive function measured with an NTB (carriers MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25, noncarriers MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10, P for interaction 0.09). There was no clear evidence for an interaction with baseline cognitive status (defined by MMSE-score) on cognitive function measured with an NTB (low baseline MMSE group MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11, high baseline MMSE group MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04, P for interaction 0.12), nor was there clear evidence for an effect in participants with a Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia (CAIDE) score > 6 points (MD 0.07, 95%CI -0.00 to 0.15).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence that multi-domain interventions can prevent incident dementia based on two trials. There was a small improvement in cognitive function assessed by a NTB in the group of participants receiving a multi-domain intervention, although this effect was strongest in trials offering cognitive training within the multi-domain intervention, making it difficult to rule out a potential learning effect. Interventions were diverse in terms of their components and intensity.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Our conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We did not find evidence that multi-domain interventions can prevent dementia, but they may have a small beneficial effect on cognitive functioning in older people. There were a lot of differences between the interventions and we cannot say anything about whether targeting particular risk factors or combinations of risk factors might have a bigger effect, or about how long interventions might need to last. There is a still a lot than can be learned from further research in this area." } ]
query-laysum	24159	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nManagement of rotator cuff disease often includes manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered together as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one of a series of reviews that form an update of the Cochrane review, 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain'.\nObjectives\nTo synthesise available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of manual therapy and exercise, alone or in combination, for the treatment of people with rotator cuff disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2015), Ovid EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2015), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, January 1937 to March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP clinical trials registries up to March 2015, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials, to identify potentially relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised trials, including adults with rotator cuff disease, and comparing any manual therapy or exercise intervention with placebo, no intervention, a different type of manual therapy or exercise or any other intervention (e.g. glucocorticoid injection). Interventions included mobilisation, manipulation and supervised or home exercises. Trials investigating the primary or add-on effect of manual therapy and exercise were the main comparisons of interest. Main outcomes of interest were overall pain, function, pain on motion, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life and the number of participants experiencing adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 60 trials (3620 participants), although only 10 addressed the main comparisons of interest. Overall risk of bias was low in three, unclear in 14 and high in 43 trials. We were unable to perform any meta-analyses because of clinical heterogeneity or incomplete outcome reporting. One trial compared manual therapy and exercise with placebo (inactive ultrasound therapy) in 120 participants with chronic rotator cuff disease (high quality evidence). At 22 weeks, the mean change in overall pain with placebo was 17.3 points on a 100-point scale, and 24.8 points with manual therapy and exercise (adjusted mean difference (MD) 6.8 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 14.30 points; absolute risk difference 7%, 1% fewer to 14% more). Mean change in function with placebo was 15.6 points on a 100-point scale, and 22.4 points with manual therapy and exercise (adjusted MD 7.1 points, 95% CI 0.30 to 13.90 points; absolute risk difference 7%, 1% to 14% more). Fifty-seven per cent (31/54) of participants reported treatment success with manual therapy and exercise compared with 41% (24/58) of participants receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.03; absolute risk difference 16% (2% fewer to 34% more). Thirty-one per cent (17/55) of participants reported adverse events with manual therapy and exercise compared with 8% (5/61) of participants receiving placebo (RR 3.77, 95% CI 1.49 to 9.54; absolute risk difference 23% (9% to 37% more). However adverse events were mild (short-term pain following treatment).\nFive trials (low quality evidence) found no important differences between manual therapy and exercise compared with glucocorticoid injection with respect to overall pain, function, active shoulder abduction and quality of life from four weeks up to 12 months. However, global treatment success was more common up to 11 weeks in people receiving glucocorticoid injection (low quality evidence). One trial (low quality evidence) showed no important differences between manual therapy and exercise and arthroscopic subacromial decompression with respect to overall pain, function, active range of motion and strength at six and 12 months, or global treatment success at four to eight years. One trial (low quality evidence) found that manual therapy and exercise may not be as effective as acupuncture plus dietary counselling and Phlogenzym supplement with respect to overall pain, function, active shoulder abduction and quality life at 12 weeks. We are uncertain whether manual therapy and exercise improves function more than oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), or whether combining manual therapy and exercise with glucocorticoid injection provides additional benefit in function over glucocorticoid injection alone, because of the very low quality evidence in these two trials.\nFifty-two trials investigated effects of manual therapy alone or exercise alone, and the evidence was mostly very low quality. There was little or no difference in patient-important outcomes between manual therapy alone and placebo, no treatment, therapeutic ultrasound and kinesiotaping, although manual therapy alone was less effective than glucocorticoid injection. Exercise alone led to less improvement in overall pain, but not function, when compared with surgical repair for rotator cuff tear. There was little or no difference in patient-important outcomes between exercise alone and placebo, radial extracorporeal shockwave treatment, glucocorticoid injection, arthroscopic subacromial decompression and functional brace. Further, manual therapy or exercise provided few or no additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions, and one type of manual therapy or exercise was rarely more effective than another.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite identifying 60 eligible trials, only one trial compared a combination of manual therapy and exercise reflective of common current practice to placebo. We judged it to be of high quality and found no clinically important differences between groups in any outcome. Effects of manual therapy and exercise may be similar to those of glucocorticoid injection and arthroscopic subacromial decompression, but this is based on low quality evidence. Adverse events associated with manual therapy and exercise are relatively more frequent than placebo but mild in nature. Novel combinations of manual therapy and exercise should be compared with a realistic placebo in future trials. Further trials of manual therapy alone or exercise alone for rotator cuff disease should be based upon a strong rationale and consideration of whether or not they would alter the conclusions of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This summary of an updated Cochrane review presents what we know from research about the benefits and harms of manual therapy and exercise compared with placebo, no intervention or any other intervention in people with rotator cuff disease. After searching for all relevant studies published up to March 2015, we included 60 trials (3620 participants), however only 10 looked at manual therapy and exercise in combination. Among the included participants, 52% were women, average age was 51 years and average duration of the condition was 11 months. The average duration of manual therapy and exercise interventions was six weeks." } ]
query-laysum	24160	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDuchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common X-linked neuromuscular disorder. When boys with DMD reach the second decade of life, they lose their ability to walk and become wheelchair dependent. Standing devices and orthoses are considered to be an essential component in the therapy management of DMD. Clinical opinion and research from other neurological conditions highlight the proposed benefits of standing device use, however, its effect within this population is currently unknown. A review of the evidence for the use of standing devices and orthoses is necessary to inform all stakeholders, including people with DMD, clinicians, decision makers and funders, and to guide future research.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of standing devices and orthoses on musculoskeletal impairments (such as pain, contracture, scoliosis development and bone density) in boys and men with DMD, and secondarily to determine their effect on quality of life, participation in activities, and patient experience (satisfaction). We also considered any adverse events associated with their use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, PEDro, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global up to 5 September 2019. We checked references in identified trials, handsearched journal abstracts, and searched trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any model of standing device for use in DMD. The control interventions would have been any other comparison group, including no standing device, a different model of standing device, usual care, or an alternative form of assistive weight bearing.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nAlthough we identified 13 potentially relevant studies, none met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince there were no RCTs or quasi-RCTs available to evaluate the effectiveness of standing devices in people with DMD, studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of standing devices in this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found no studies that met our inclusion criteria." } ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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