dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum | 2527 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTherapist-delivered trauma-focused psychological therapies are effective for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and have become the accepted first-line treatments. Despite the established evidence-base for these therapies, they are not always widely available or accessible. Many barriers limit treatment uptake, such as the number of qualified therapists available to deliver the interventions; cost; and compliance issues, such as time off work, childcare, and transportation, associated with the need to attend weekly appointments. Delivering Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapy (I-C/BT) is an effective and acceptable alternative to therapist-delivered treatments for anxiety and depression.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of I-C/BT for PTSD in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to June 2020. We also searched online clinical trial registries and reference lists of included studies and contacted the authors of included studies and other researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for RCTs of I-C/BT compared to face-to-face or Internet-based psychological treatment, psychoeducation, wait list, or care as usual. We included studies of adults (aged over 16 years), in which at least 70% of the participants met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, and entered data into Review Manager 5. The primary outcomes were severity of PTSD symptoms and dropouts. Secondary outcomes included diagnosis of PTSD after treatment, severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms, cost-effectiveness, adverse events, treatment acceptability, and quality of life. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We pooled data using a fixed-effect meta-analysis, except where heterogeneity was present, in which case we used a random-effects model. We independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias and we evaluated the certainty of available evidence using the GRADE approach; we discussed any conflicts with at least one other review author, with the aim of reaching a unanimous decision.\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies with 808 participants. Ten studies compared I-C/BT delivered with therapist guidance to a wait list control. Two studies compared guided I-C/BT with I-non-C/BT. One study compared guided I-C/BT with face-to-face non-C/BT. There was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies.\nI-C/BT compared with face-to-face non-CBT\nVery low-certainty evidence based on one small study suggested face-to-face non-CBT may be more effective than I-C/BT at reducing PTSD symptoms post-treatment (MD 10.90, 95% CI 6.57 to 15.23; studies = 1, participants = 40). There may be no evidence of a difference in dropout rates between treatments (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.91 to 6.77; studies = 1, participants = 40; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure diagnosis of PTSD, severity of depressive or anxiety symptoms, cost-effectiveness, or adverse events.\nI-C/BT compared with wait list\nVery low-certainty evidence showed that, compared with wait list, I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in PTSD post-treatment (SMD –0.61, 95% CI –0.93 to –0.29; studies = 10, participants = 608). There may be no evidence of a difference in dropout rates between the I-C/BT and wait list groups (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.60; studies = 9, participants = 634; low-certainty evidence). I-C/BT may be no more effective than wait list at reducing the risk of a diagnosis of PTSD after treatment (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00; studies = 1, participants = 62; very low-certainty evidence). I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of depression post-treatment (SMD –0.51, 95% CI –0.97 to –0.06; studies = 7, participants = 473; very low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence also suggested that I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of anxiety post-treatment (SMD –0.61, 95% CI –0.89 to –0.33; studies = 5, participants = 345). There were no data regarding cost-effectiveness. Data regarding adverse events were uncertain, as only one study reported an absence of adverse events.\nI-C/BT compared with I-non-C/BT\nThere may be no evidence of a difference in PTSD symptoms post-treatment between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD –0.08, 95% CI –0.52 to 0.35; studies = 2, participants = 82; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference between dropout rates from the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 4.73; studies = 2, participants = 132; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found no evidence of a difference in post-treatment depressive symptoms between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD –0.12, 95% CI –0.78 to 0.54; studies = 2, participants = 84; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found no evidence of a difference in post-treatment symptoms of anxiety between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD 0.08, 95% CI –0.78 to 0.95; studies = 2, participants = 74; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding cost-effectiveness. Data regarding adverse effects were uncertain, as it was not discernible whether adverse effects reported were attributable to the intervention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile the review found some beneficial effects of I-C/BT for PTSD, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to the small number of included trials. This review update found many planned and ongoing studies, which is encouraging since further work is required to establish non-inferiority to current first-line interventions, explore mechanisms of change, establish optimal levels of guidance, explore cost-effectiveness, measure adverse events, and determine predictors of efficacy and dropout.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who will be interested in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "– People with PTSD and their families and friends.\n– Professionals working in mental health services.\n– General practitioners.\n– Commissioners."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2528 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVarious methods of conscious sedation and analgesia (CSA) have been used during oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction. The choice of agent has been influenced by the quality of sedation and analgesia and by concerns about possible detrimental effects on reproductive outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of different methods of conscious sedation and analgesia for pain relief and pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing transvaginal oocyte retrieval.\nSearch methods\nWe searched; the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, and trials registers in November 2017. We also checked references, and contacted study authors for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different methods and administrative protocols for conscious sedation and analgesia during oocyte retrieval.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, patient satisfaction, analgesic side effects, and postoperative complications.\nMain results\nWe included 24 RCTs (3160 women) in five comparisons. We report the main comparisons below. Evidence quality was generally low or very low, mainly owing to poor reporting and imprecision.\n1. CSA versus other active interventions.\nAll evidence for this comparison was of very low quality.\nCSA versus CSA plus acupuncture or electroacupuncture\nData show more effective intraoperative pain relief on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) with CSA plus acupuncture (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.82, 62 women) or electroacupuncture (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.23 to 3.77, 62 women).\nData also show more effective postoperative pain relief (0 to 10 VAS) with CSA plus acupuncture (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.10 to 1.30, 61 women) or electroacupuncture (MD 2.10, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.80, 61 women).\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether clinical pregnancy rates were different between CSA and CSA plus acupuncture (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.86, 61 women). CSA alone may be associated with fewer pregnancies than CSA plus electroacupuncture (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66, 61 women).\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether rates of vomiting were different between CSA and CSA plus acupuncture (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.88, 62 women) or electroacupuncture (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.58, 62 women).\nTrialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.\nCSA versus general anaesthesia\nPostoperative pain relief was greater in the CSA group (0 to 3 Likert: mean difference (MD) 1.9, 95% CI 2.24 to 1.56, one RCT, 50 women).\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.35, two RCTs, 108 women, I2 = 0%).\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in rates of vomiting (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75, one RCT, 50 women) or airway obstruction (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.22, one RCT, 58 women). Fewer women needed mask ventilation in the CSA group (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.20, one RCT, 58 women).\nEvidence was also insufficient to show whether groups differed in satisfaction rates (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.04, two RCTs, 108 women, I2 = 34%; very low-quality evidence).\nTrialists provided no usable data for outcomes of interest.\n2. CSA + paracervical block (PCB) versus other interventions.\nCSA + PCB versus electroacupuncture + PCB\nIntraoperative pain scores were lower in the CSA + PCB group (0 to 10 VAS: MD -0.66, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.39, 781 women, I2 = 76%; low-quality evidence).\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29, 783 women, I2 = 9%; low-quality evidence).\nTrialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.\nCSA + PCB versus general anaesthesia\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in postoperative pain scores (0 to 10 VAS: MD 0.49, 95% CI -0.13 to 1.11, 50 women; very low-quality evidence).\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.26, 51 women; very low-quality evidence).\nTrialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.\nCSA + PCB versus spinal anaesthesia\nPostoperative pain scores were higher in the CSA + PCB group (0 to 10 VAS: MD 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.56, 36 women; very low-quality evidence).\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.65, 38 women; very low-quality evidence).\nTrialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.\nCSA + PCB versus PCB\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.96, 150 women; low-quality evidence) or satisfaction (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.89, 150 women, low-quality evidence).\nTrialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.\nCSA + PCB versus CSA only\nEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.36, one RCT, 100 women; very low-quality evidence). Rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting were lower in the CS + PCB group (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97, two RCTs, 140 women, I2 = 40%; very low-quality evidence).\nTrialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence does not support one particular method or technique over another in providing effective conscious sedation and analgesia for pain relief during and after oocyte retrieval. Simultaneous use of sedation combined with analgesia such as the opiates, further enhanced by paracervical block or acupuncture techniques, resulted in better pain relief than occurred with one modality alone. Evidence was insufficient to show conclusively whether any of the interventions influenced pregnancy rates. All techniques reviewed were associated with a high degree of patient satisfaction. Women’s preferences and resource availability for choice of pain relief merit consideration in practice.\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": "Conscious sedation comprises use of a drug or drugs to produce a state of relaxation enabling treatment to be carried out, during which verbal contact with the patient is maintained throughout the period of sedation. Conscious sedation and analgesia are methods used to relieve pain during surgery to retrieve eggs from the ovaries as part of in vitro (i.e. in an artificial environment such as a laboratory) fertilisation procedures. Concerns include that drugs used for sedation and pain relief may have an adverse effect on pregnancy rates."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2529 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPoor diet and insufficient physical activity are major risk factors for non-communicable diseases. Developing healthy diet and physical activity behaviors early in life is important as these behaviors track between childhood and adulthood. Parents and other adult caregivers have important influences on children's health behaviors, but whether their involvement in children's nutrition and physical activity interventions contributes to intervention effectiveness is not known.\nObjectives\n• To assess effects of caregiver involvement in interventions for improving children's dietary intake and physical activity behaviors, including those intended to prevent overweight and obesity\n• To describe intervention content and behavior change techniques employed, drawing from a behavior change technique taxonomy developed and advanced by Abraham, Michie, and colleagues (Abraham 2008; Michie 2011; Michie 2013; Michie 2015)\n• To identify content and techniques related to reported outcomes when such information was reported in included studies\nSearch methods\nIn January 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases, and three trials registers. We also searched the references lists of relevant reports and systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of interventions to improve children's dietary intake or physical activity behavior, or both, with children aged 2 to 18 years as active participants and at least one component involving caregivers versus the same interventions but without the caregiver component(s). We excluded interventions meant as treatment or targeting children with pre-existing conditions, as well as caregiver-child units residing in orphanages and school hostel environments.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures outlined by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 23 trials with approximately 12,192 children in eligible intervention arms. With the exception of two studies, all were conducted in high-income countries, with more than half performed in North America. Most studies were school-based and involved the addition of healthy eating or physical education classes, or both, sometimes in tandem with other changes to the school environment. The specific intervention strategies used were not always reported completely. However, based on available reports, the behavior change techniques used most commonly in the child-only arm were \"shaping knowledge,\" \"comparison of behavior,\" \"feedback and monitoring,\" and \"repetition and substitution.\" In the child + caregiver arm, the strategies used most commonly included additional \"shaping knowledge\" or \"feedback and monitoring\" techniques, as well as \"social support\" and \"natural consequences.\"\nWe considered all trials to be at high risk of bias for at least one design factor. Seven trials did not contribute any data to analyses. The quality of reporting of intervention content varied between studies, and there was limited scope for meta-analysis. Both validated and non-validated instruments were used to measure outcomes of interest. Outcomes measured and reported differed between studies, with 16 studies contributing data to the meta-analyses. About three-quarters of studies reported their funding sources; no studies reported industry funding. We assessed the quality of evidence to be low or very low.\nDietary behavior change interventions with a caregiver component versus interventions without a caregiver component\nSeven studies compared dietary behavior change interventions with and without a caregiver component. At the end of the intervention, we did not detect a difference between intervention arms in children's percentage of total energy intake from saturated fat (mean difference [MD] −0.42%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.25 to 0.41, 1 study, n = 207; low-quality evidence) or from sodium intake (MD −0.12 g/d, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.12, 1 study, n = 207; low-quality evidence). No trial in this comparison reported data for children's combined fruit and vegetable intake, sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake, or physical activity levels, nor for adverse effects of interventions.\nPhysical activity interventions with a caregiver component versus interventions without a caregiver component\nSix studies compared physical activity interventions with and without a caregiver component. At the end of the intervention, we did not detect a difference between intervention arms in children's total physical activity (MD 0.20 min/h, 95% CI −1.19 to 1.59, 1 study, n = 54; low-quality evidence) or moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (standard mean difference [SMD] 0.04, 95% CI −0.41 to 0.49, 2 studies, n = 80; moderate-quality evidence). No trial in this comparison reported data for percentage of children's total energy intake from saturated fat, sodium intake, fruit and vegetable intake, or SSB intake, nor for adverse effects of interventions.\nCombined dietary and physical activity interventions with a caregiver component versus interventions without a caregiver component\nTen studies compared dietary and physical activity interventions with and without a caregiver component. At the end of the intervention, we detected a small positive impact of a caregiver component on children's SSB intake (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.44 to −0.12, 3 studies, n = 651; moderate-quality evidence). We did not detect a difference between intervention arms in children's percentage of total energy intake from saturated fat (MD 0.06%, 95% CI −0.67 to 0.80, 2 studies, n = 216; very low-quality evidence), sodium intake (MD 35.94 mg/d, 95% CI −322.60 to 394.47, 2 studies, n = 315; very low-quality evidence), fruit and vegetable intake (MD 0.38 servings/d, 95% CI −0.51 to 1.27, 1 study, n = 134; very low-quality evidence), total physical activity (MD 1.81 min/d, 95% CI −15.18 to 18.80, 2 studies, n = 573; low-quality evidence), or MVPA (MD −0.05 min/d, 95% CI −18.57 to 18.47, 1 study, n = 622; very low-quality evidence). One trial indicated that no adverse events were reported by study participants but did not provide data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence is insufficient to support the inclusion of caregiver involvement in interventions to improve children's dietary intake or physical activity behavior, or both. For most outcomes, the quality of the evidence is adversely impacted by the small number of studies with available data, limited effective sample sizes, risk of bias, and imprecision. To establish the value of caregiver involvement, additional studies measuring clinically important outcomes using valid and reliable measures, employing appropriate design and power, and following established reporting guidelines are needed, as is evidence on how such interventions might contribute to health equity.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Currentness of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to January 2019."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2530 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBehçet's disease is a chronic inflammatory vasculitis that can affect multiple systems. Mucocutaneous involvement is common, as is the involvement of many other systems such as the central nervous system and skin. Behç̧et's disease can cause significant morbidity, such as loss of sight, and can be life threatening. The frequency of oral ulceration in Behçet's disease is thought to be 97% to 100%. The presence of mouth ulcers can cause difficulties in eating, drinking, and speaking leading to a reduction in quality of life. There is no cure for Behçet's disease and therefore treatment of the oral ulcers that are associated with Behçet's disease is palliative.\nObjectives\nTo determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of interventions on the pain, episode duration, and episode frequency of oral ulcers and on quality of life for patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS)-type ulceration associated with Behçet's disease.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 4 October 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9); MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 4 October 2013); EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 4 October 2013); CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 4 October 2013); and AMED via Ovid (1985 to 4 October 2013). We searched the US National Institutes of Health trials register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We contacted authors when necessary to obtain additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that looked at pre-specified oral outcome measures to assess the efficacy of interventions for mouth ulcers in Behçet's disease. The oral outcome measures included pain, episode duration, episode frequency, safety, and quality of life. Trials were not restricted by outcomes alone.\nData collection and analysis\nAll studies meeting the inclusion criteria underwent data extraction and an assessment of risk of bias, independently by two review authors and using a pre-standardised data extraction form. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nA total of 15 trials (n = 888 randomised participants) were included, 13 were placebo controlled and three were head to head (two trials had more than two treatment arms). Eleven of the trials were conducted in Turkey, two in Japan, one in Iran and one in the UK. Most trials used the International Study Group criteria for Behçet's disease. Eleven different interventions were assessed. The interventions were grouped into two categories, topical and systemic. Only one study was assessed as being at low risk of bias. It was not possible to carry out a meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low and there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any included intervention with regard to pain, episode duration, or episode frequency associated with oral ulcers, or safety of the interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the heterogeneity of trials including trial design, choice of intervention, choice and timing of outcome measures, it was not possible to carry out a meta-analysis. Several interventions show promise and future trials should be planned and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines. Whilst the primary aim of many trials for Behç̧et's disease is not necessarily reduction of oral ulceration, reporting of oral ulcers in these studies should be standardised and pre-specified in the methodology. The use of a core outcome set for oral ulcer trials would be beneficial.\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": "Behçet's disease is a chronic disease characterised by a multitude of signs and symptoms including oral and genital ulcerations, skin lesions and inflammatory vascular involvement of the central nervous system and gastrointestinal tract. Although the underlying cause of Behçet’s disease is unknown it is thought to involve a genetic predisposition combined with environmental factors.\nBehçet's disease most commonly presents in the third decade. The disease is rare in individuals older than age 50 years and during childhood. Although both sexes are equally affected, it is thought that the disease has a more severe course amongst men.\nThe oral ulceration that occurs in Behçet's disease can be painful and slow to heal. At its worst, this can cause significant difficulties in eating and drinking."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2531 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSevere bleeding and coagulopathy are serious clinical conditions that are associated with high mortality. Thromboelastography (TEG) and thromboelastometry (ROTEM) are increasingly used to guide transfusion strategy but their roles remain disputed. This review was first published in 2011 and updated in January 2016.\nObjectives\nWe assessed the benefits and harms of thromboelastography (TEG)-guided or thromboelastometry (ROTEM)-guided transfusion in adults and children with bleeding. We looked at various outcomes, such as overall mortality and bleeding events, conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses, examined the role of bias, and applied trial sequential analyses (TSAs) to examine the amount of evidence gathered so far.\nSearch methods\nIn this updated review we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1); MEDLINE; Embase; Science Citation Index Expanded; International Web of Science; CINAHL; LILACS; and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (up to 5 January 2016). We contacted trial authors, authors of previous reviews, and manufacturers in the field. The original search was run in October 2010.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all RCTs, irrespective of blinding or language, that compared transfusion guided by TEG or ROTEM to transfusion guided by clinical judgement, guided by standard laboratory tests, or a combination. We also included interventional algorithms including both TEG or ROTEM in combination with standard laboratory tests or other devices. The primary analysis included trials on TEG or ROTEM versus any comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently abstracted data; we resolved any disagreements by discussion. We presented pooled estimates of the intervention effects on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Due to skewed data, meta-analysis was not provided for continuous outcome data. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effect based on the presence of coagulopathy of a TEG- or ROTEM-guided algorithm, and in adults and children on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of trial methodological components and the risk of random error through TSA.\nMain results\nWe included eight new studies (617 participants) in this updated review. In total we included 17 studies (1493 participants). A total of 15 trials provided data for the meta-analyses. We judged only two trials as low risk of bias. The majority of studies included participants undergoing cardiac surgery.\nWe found six ongoing trials but were unable to retrieve any data from them. Compared with transfusion guided by any method, TEG or ROTEM seemed to reduce overall mortality (7.4% versus 3.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95; I2 = 0%, 8 studies, 717 participants, low quality of evidence) but only eight trials provided data on mortality, and two were zero event trials. Our analyses demonstrated a statistically significant effect of TEG or ROTEM compared to any comparison on the proportion of participants transfused with pooled red blood cells (PRBCs) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; I2 = 0%, 10 studies, 832 participants, low quality of evidence), fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96; I2 = 86%, 8 studies, 761 participants, low quality of evidence), platelets (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88; I2 = 0%, 10 studies, 832 participants, low quality of evidence), and overall haemostatic transfusion with FFP or platelets (low quality of evidence). Meta-analyses also showed fewer participants with dialysis-dependent renal failure.\nWe found no difference in the proportion needing surgical reinterventions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.10; I2 = 0%, 9 studies, 887 participants, low quality of evidence) and excessive bleeding events or massive transfusion (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; I2 = 34%, 2 studies, 280 participants, low quality of evidence). The planned subgroup analyses failed to show any significant differences.\nWe graded the quality of evidence as low based on the high risk of bias in the studies, large heterogeneity, low number of events, imprecision, and indirectness. TSA indicates that only 54% of required information size has been reached so far in regards to mortality, while there may be evidence of benefit for transfusion outcomes. Overall, evaluated outcomes were consistent with a benefit in favour of a TEG- or ROTEM-guided transfusion in bleeding patients.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is growing evidence that application of TEG- or ROTEM-guided transfusion strategies may reduce the need for blood products, and improve morbidity in patients with bleeding. However, these results are primarily based on trials of elective cardiac surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass, and the level of evidence remains low. Further evaluation of TEG- or ROTEM-guided transfusion in acute settings and other patient categories in low risk of bias studies is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Objective\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In the present systematic review we set out to assess the benefits and harms of a TEG- or ROTEM-guided use of blood products in comparison with standard tests, or doctors clinical judgement, in the treatment of bleeding patients. Evidence is current to January 2016."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2532 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe effective control of moisture and microbes is necessary for the success of restoration procedures. The rubber dam, as an isolation method, has been widely used in dental restorative treatments. The effects of rubber dam usage on the longevity and quality of dental restorations still require evidence-based discussion. This review compares the effects of rubber dam with other isolation methods in dental restorative treatments. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of rubber dam isolation compared with other types of isolation used for direct and indirect restorative treatments in dental patients.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information specialist searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 13 January 2021), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 13 January 2021), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 January 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 13 January 2021), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 13 January 2021), and SciELO BIREME Virtual Health Library (1998 to 13 January 2021). We also searched Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM, in Chinese) (1978 to 13 January 2021), VIP database (in Chinese) (1989 to 13 January 2021), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, in Chinese) (1994 to 13 January 2021). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, OpenGrey, and Sciencepaper Online (in Chinese) for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (including split-mouth trials) over one month in length assessing the effects of rubber dam compared with alternative isolation methods for dental restorative treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Disagreement was resolved by discussion. We strictly followed Cochrane's statistical guidelines and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included six studies conducted worldwide between 2010 and 2015 involving a total of 1342 participants (of which 233 participants were lost to follow-up). All the included studies were at high risk of bias.\nFive studies compared rubber dam with traditional cotton rolls isolation. One study was excluded from the analysis due to inconsistencies in the presented data. Of the four remaining trials, three reported survival rates of the restorations with a minimum follow-up of six months. Pooled results from two studies involving 192 participants indicated that the use of rubber dam isolation may increase the survival rates of direct composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) at six months (odds ratio (OR) 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 4.99; low-certainty evidence). However, the use of rubber dam in NCCLs composite restorations may have little to no effect on the survival rates of the restorations compared to cotton rolls at 12 months (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.28; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and at 18 months (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.25; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. At 24 months, the use of rubber dam may decrease the risk of failure of the restorations in children undergoing proximal atraumatic restorative treatment in primary molars but the evidence is very uncertain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97; 1 study, 559 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nNone of the included studies mentioned adverse effects or reported the direct cost of the treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found some low-certainty evidence that the use of rubber dam in dental direct restorative treatments may lead to a lower failure rate of the restorations compared with cotton roll usage after six months. At other time points, the evidence is very uncertain. Further high-quality research evaluating the effects of rubber dam usage on different types of restorative treatments is required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is based on a small number of studies conducted in ways that may have introduced errors into their results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2533 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPerineal trauma is common during childbirth and may be painful. Contemporary maternity practice includes offering women numerous forms of pain relief, including the local application of cooling treatments. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review last updated in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of localised cooling treatments compared with no treatment, placebo, or other cooling treatments applied to the perineum for pain relief following perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nPublished and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials (RCTs) that compared a localised cooling treatment applied to the perineum with no treatment, placebo, or another cooling treatment applied to relieve pain related to perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were double checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 10 RCTs that enrolled 1233 women randomised to the use of one cooling treatment (ice, cold gel pad, cooling plus compression, cooling plus compression plus (being) horizontal) compared with another cooling treatment, no treatment, or placebo (water pack, compression). The included trials were at low or uncertain risk of bias overall, with the exception that the inability to blind participants and personnel to group allocation meant that we rated all trials at unclear or high risk for this domain.\nWe undertook a number of comparisons to evaluate the different treatments.\nCooling treatment (ice pack or cold gel pad) versus no treatment\nThere was limited very low-certainty evidence that cooling treatment may reduce women's self-reported perineal pain within four to six hours (mean difference (MD) −4.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.07 to −3.85 on a 10-point scale; 1 study, 100 participants) or between 24 and 48 hours of giving birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94; 1 study, 316 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the various measures of wound healing, for example, wound edges gaping when inspected five days after giving birth (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.58 to 11.33; 1 study, 315 participants). Women generally rated their satisfaction with perineal care similarly following cooling or no treatment. The potential exception was that there may be a trivially lower mean difference of −0.1 on a five-point scale of psychospiritual comfort with cooling treatment, that is unlikely to be of clinical importance.\nCooling treatment (cold gel pad) + compression versus placebo (gel pad + compression)\nThere was limited low-certainty evidence that there may be a trivial MD of −0.43 in pain on a 10-point scale at 24 to 48 hours after giving birth (95% CI −0.73 to −0.13; 1 study, 250 participants) when a cooling treatment plus compression from a well-secured perineal pad was compared with the placebo. Levels of perineal oedema may be similar for the two groups (low-certainty evidence) and perineal bruising was not observed. There was low-certainty evidence that women may rate their satisfaction as being slightly higher with perineal care in the cold gel pad and compression group (MD 0.88, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.38; 1 trial, 250 participants).\nCooling treatment (ice pack) versus placebo (water pack)\nOne study reported that no women reported pain after using an ice pack or a water pack when asked within 24 hours of giving birth. There was low-certainty evidence that oedema may be similar for the two groups when assessed at four to six hours (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 1 study, 63 participants) or within 24 hours of giving birth (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.59). No women were observed to have perineal bruising at these times. The trialists reported that no women in either group experienced any adverse effects on wound healing. There was very low-certainty evidence that women may rate their views and experiences with the treatments similarly (for example, satisfied with treatment: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.08; 63 participants).\nCooling treatment (ice pack) versus cooling treatment (cold gel pad)\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effects of using ice packs or cold gel pads on women’s self-rated perineal pain, on perineal bruising, or on perineal oedema at four to six hours or within 24 hours of giving birth. Perineal oedema may persist 24 to 48 hours after giving birth in women using the ice packs (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.7; 2 trials, 264 participants; very low-certainty). The risk of gaping wound edges five days after giving birth may be decreased in women who had used ice packs (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.01; 215 participants; very low-certainty). However, this did not appear to persist to day 10 (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 14.81; 214 participants). Women may rate their opinion of treatment less favourably following the use of ice packs five days after giving birth (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; 1 study, 49 participants) and when assessed on day 10 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92; 1 study, 208 participants), both very low-certainty.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited very low-certainty evidence that may support the use of cooling treatments, in the form or ice packs or cold gel pads, for the relief of perineal pain in the first two days following childbirth. It is likely that concurrent use of several treatments is required to adequately address this issue, including prescription and non-prescription analgesia. Studies included in this review involved the use of cooling treatments for 10 to 20 minutes, and although no adverse effects were noted, these findings came from studies of relatively small numbers of women, or were not reported at all. The continued lack of high-certainty evidence of the benefits of cooling treatments should be viewed with caution, and further well-designed trials should be conducted.\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 only a small amount of low or very low-quality evidence from small trials suggesting that cooling treatments may help relieve perineal pain after having a baby. Further research is needed to see if cooling affects how well the tears or cuts heal. Ice is readily available in high-income countries but this may not be the case in low-middle income countries. Gel pads that need to be placed in a freezer for cooling may also not be readily available in low-middle income areas."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2534 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAbdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a vascular condition with significant risk attached, particularly if they rupture. Therefore, it is critical to identify and repair these as an elective procedure before they rupture and require emergency surgery. Repair has traditionally been an open surgical technique that required a large incision across the abdomen. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs (EVARs) are now a common alternative. In this procedure, the common femoral artery is exposed via a cut-down approach and a graft is introduced to the aneurysm in this way. This Cochrane Review examines a totally percutaneous approach to EVAR. This technique gives a minimally invasive approach to femoral artery access that may reduce groin wound complication rates and improve recovery time. However, the technique may be less applicable in people with, for example, groin scarring or arterial calcification. This is an update of the previous Cochrane Review published in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of totally percutaneous access compared to cut-down femoral artery access in people undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods The latest search was 8 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials in people diagnosed with an AAA comparing totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down access endovascular repair. We considered all device types. We only considered studies investigating elective repairs. We excluded studies reporting emergency surgery for ruptured AAAs and those reporting aorto-uni-iliac repairs.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. short-term mortality, 2. failure of aneurysm exclusion and 3. wound infection. Secondary outcomes were 4. major complications (30-day or in-hospital); 5. medium- to long-term (6 and 12 months) complications and mortality; 6. bleeding complications and haematoma; and 7. operating time, duration of intensive treatment unit (ITU) stay and hospital stay. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the seven most clinically relevant primary and secondary outcomes.\nMain results\nThree studies with 318 participants met the inclusion criteria, 189 undergoing the percutaneous technique and 129 treated by cut-down femoral artery access. One study had a small sample size and did not adequately report the method of randomisation, allocation concealment or preselected outcomes. The other two larger studies had few sources of bias and good methodology; although one study had a high risk of bias in selective reporting.\nWe observed no clear difference in short-term mortality between groups, with only one death occurring overall, in the totally percutaneous group (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 36.18; 2 studies, 181 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported failure of aneurysm exclusion. There was one failure of aneurysm exclusion in the surgical cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.02; 1 study, 151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For wound infection, there was no clear difference between groups (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.59; 3 studies, 318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere was no clear difference between percutaneous and cut-down femoral artery access groups in major complications (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.41; 3 studies, 318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), bleeding complications (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.64; 2 studies, 181 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or haematoma (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.05; 2 studies, 288 participants).\nOne study reported medium- to long-term complications at six months, with no clear differences between the percutaneous and cut-down femoral artery access groups (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.65; 1 study, 135 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe detected differences in operating time, with the percutaneous approach being faster than cut-down femoral artery access (mean difference (MD) −21.13 minutes, 95% CI −41.74 to −0.53 minutes; 3 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported the duration of ITU stay and hospital stay, with no clear difference between groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSkin puncture may make little to no difference to short-term mortality. There is probably little or no difference in failure of aneurysm exclusion (failure to seal the aneurysms), wound infection, major complications within 30 days or while in hospital, medium- to long-term (six months) complications and bleeding complications between the two groups. Compared with exposing the femoral artery, skin puncture may reduce the operating time slightly. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate and low as a result of imprecision due to the small number of participants, low event rates and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to clinical heterogeneity. As the number of included studies was limited, further research into this technique would be beneficial.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to know if skin puncture was better than exposing the femoral artery for minimally invasive repairs of abdominal aortic aneurysms."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2535 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute rhinosinusitis is an acute infection of the nasal passages and paranasal sinuses that lasts less than four weeks. Diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis is generally based on clinical signs and symptoms in ambulatory care settings. Technical investigations are not routinely performed, nor are they recommended in most countries. Some trials show a trend in favour of antibiotics, but the balance of benefit versus harm is unclear.\nWe merged two Cochrane Reviews for this update, which comprised different approaches with overlapping populations, resulting in different conclusions. For this review update, we maintained the distinction between populations diagnosed by clinical signs and symptoms, or imaging.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment in adults with acute rhinosinusitis in ambulatory care settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 12), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2018), Embase (January 1974 to January 2018), and two trials registers (January 2018). We also checked references from identified trials, systematic reviews, and relevant guidelines.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment in people with rhinosinusitis-like signs or symptoms or sinusitis confirmed by imaging.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data about cure and side effects and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information as required.\nMain results\nWe included 15 trials involving 3057 participants. Of the 15 included trials, 10 appeared in our 2012 review, and five (631 participants) are legacy trials from merging two reviews. No new studies were included from searches for this update. Overall, risk of bias was low. Without antibiotics, 46% of participants with rhinosinusitis, whether or not confirmed by radiography, were cured after 1 week and 64% after 14 days. Antibiotics can shorten time to cure, but only 5 to 11 more people per 100 will be cured faster if they receive antibiotics instead of placebo or no treatment: clinical diagnosis (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.54; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 19, 95% CI 10 to 205; I² = 0%; 8 trials; high-quality evidence) and diagnosis confirmed by radiography (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.39; NNTB 10, 95% CI 5 to 136; I² = 0%; 3 trials; moderate-quality evidence). Cure rates with antibiotics were higher when a fluid level or total opacification in any sinus was found on computed tomography (OR 4.89, 95% CI 1.75 to 13.72; NNTB 4, 95% CI 2 to 15; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence). Purulent secretion resolved faster with antibiotics (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.22; NNTB 10, 95% CI 6 to 35; I² = 0%; 3 trials; high-quality evidence). However, 13 more people experienced side effects with antibiotics compared to placebo or no treatment (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.82; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 8, 95% CI 6 to 12; I² = 16%; 10 trials; high-quality evidence). Five fewer people per 100 will experience clinical failure if they receive antibiotics instead of placebo or no treatment (Peto OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.63; NNTH 19, 95% CI 15 to 27; I² = 21%; 12 trials; high-quality evidence). A disease-related complication (brain abscess) occurred in one participant (of 3057) one week after receiving open antibiotic therapy (clinical failure, control group).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe potential benefit of antibiotics to treat acute rhinosinusitis diagnosed either clinically (low risk of bias, high-quality evidence) or confirmed by imaging (low to unclear risk of bias, moderate-quality evidence) is marginal and needs to be seen in the context of the risk of adverse effects. Considering antibiotic resistance, and the very low incidence of serious complications, we conclude there is no place for antibiotics for people with uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis. We could not draw conclusions about children, people with suppressed immune systems, and those with severe sinusitis, because these populations were not included in the available trials.\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": "18 January 2018."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2536 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUterine fibroids cause heavy prolonged bleeding, pain, pressure symptoms and subfertility. The traditional method of treatment has been surgery as medical therapies have not proven effective. Uterine artery embolization has been reported to be an effective and safe alternative to treat fibroids in women not desiring future fertility. There is a significant body of evidence that is based on case controlled studies and case reports. This is an update of the review previously published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo review the benefits and risks of uterine artery embolization (UAE) versus other medical or surgical interventions for symptomatic uterine fibroids.\nSearch methods\nWe searched sources including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries. The search was last conducted in April 2014. We contacted authors of eligible randomised controlled trials to request unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of UAE versus any medical or surgical therapy for symptomatic uterine fibroids. The primary outcomes of the review were patient satisfaction and live birth rate (among women seeking live birth).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo of the authors (AS and JKG) independently selected studies, assessed quality and extracted data. Evidence quality was assessed using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nSeven RCTs with 793 women were included in this review. Three trials compared UAE with abdominal hysterectomy, two trials compared UAE with myomectomy, and two trials compared UAE with either type of surgery (53 hysterectomies and 62 myomectomies).\nWith regard to patient satisfaction rates, our findings were consistent with satisfaction rates being up to 41% lower or up to 48% higher with UAE compared to surgery within 24 months of having the procedure (odds ratio (OR) 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.48, 6 trials, 640 women, I2 = 5%, moderate quality evidence). Findings were also inconclusive at five years of follow-up (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80, 2 trials, 295 women, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence). There was some indication that UAE may be associated with less favourable fertility outcomes than myomectomy, but it was very low quality evidence from a subgroup of a single study and should be regarded with extreme caution (live birth: OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.84; pregnancy: OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85, 1 study, 66 women).\nSimilarly, for several safety outcomes our findings showed evidence of a substantially higher risk of adverse events in either arm or of no difference between the groups. This applied to intra-procedural complications (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.97, 4 trials, 452 women, I2 = 40%, low quality evidence), major complications within one year (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.26, 5 trials, 611 women, I2 = 4%, moderate quality evidence) and major complications within five years (OR 0.56; CI 0.27 to 1.18, 2 trials, 268 women). However, the rate of minor complications within one year was higher in the UAE group (OR 1.99; CI 1.41 to 2.81, 6 trials, 735 women, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and two trials found a higher minor complication rate in the UAE group at up to five years (OR 2.93; CI 1.73 to 4.93, 2 trials, 268 women).\nUAE was associated with a higher rate of further surgical interventions (re-interventions within 2 years: OR 3.72; 95% CI 2.28 to 6.04, 6 trials, 732 women, I2 = 45%, moderate quality evidence; within 5 years: OR 5.79; 95% CI 2.65 to 12.65, 2 trials, 289 women, I2 = 65%). If we assumed that 7% of women will require further surgery within two years of hysterectomy or myomectomy, between 15% and 32% will require further surgery within two years of UAE.\nThe evidence suggested that women in the UAE group were less likely to require a blood transfusion than women receiving surgery (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52, 2 trials, 277 women, I2 = 0%). UAE was also associated with a shorter procedural time (two studies), shorter length of hospital stay (seven studies) and faster resumption of usual activities (six studies) in all studies that measured these outcomes; however, most of these data could not be pooled due to heterogeneity between the studies.\nThe quality of the evidence varied, and was very low for live birth, moderate for satisfaction ratings, and moderate for most safety outcomes. The main limitations in the evidence were serious imprecision due to wide confidence intervals, failure to clearly report methods, and lack of blinding for subjective outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen we compared patient satisfaction rates at up to two years following UAE versus surgery (myomectomy or hysterectomy) our findings are that there is no evidence of a difference between the interventions. Findings at five year follow-up were similarly inconclusive. There was very low quality evidence to suggest that myomectomy may be associated with better fertility outcomes than UAE, but this information was only available from a selected subgroup in one small trial.\nWe found no clear evidence of a difference between UAE and surgery in the risk of major complications, but UAE was associated with a higher rate of minor complications and an increased likelihood of requiring surgical intervention within two to five years of the initial procedure. If we assume that 7% of women will require further surgery within two years of hysterectomy or myomectomy, between 15% and 32% will require further surgery within two years of UAE. This increase in the surgical re-intervention rate may balance out any initial cost advantage of UAE. Thus although UAE is a safe, minimally invasive alternative to surgery, patient selection and counselling are paramount due to the much higher risk of requiring further surgical intervention.\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": "With regard to patient satisfaction rates, our findings were consistent with satisfaction rates being up to 41% lower or up to 48% higher with UAE compared to surgery within 24 months of having the procedure. Findings on satisfaction rates were also inconclusive at five years of follow-up.\nThere was very low quality evidence to suggest that fertility outcomes (live birth and pregnancy) may be better after myomectomy than after UAE, but this evidence was based on a small selected subgroup and should be regarded with extreme caution. The UAE group had a shorter hospital stay and a more rapid return to daily activities. With regards to safety, the evidence on major complications was inconclusive and consistent with benefit or harm, or no difference, from either intervention. However, the risk of minor complications was higher after UAE. Moreover, there was a higher likelihood of needing another surgical intervention after UAE, at two year and at five year follow-up. If we assumed that 7% of women will require further surgery within two years of hysterectomy or myomectomy, between 15% and 32% will require further surgery within two years of UAE. Therefore, it appears that while UAE is a safe option with an earlier initial recovery, it does carry a higher risk of minor complications and the need for further surgery later on."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2537 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIndividuals on continuous treatment with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at increased risk of bleeding complications during and after oral or dental procedures. Anticoagulant treatment is preferably continued at the same dose, since dose reduction or discontinuation of treatment is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism. The use of haemostatic measures during or after the procedure (or both) could enable continuation of the oral anticoagulant treatment.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to assess the efficacy of antifibrinolytic agents for preventing bleeding complications in people on oral anticoagulants undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Additional searches were performed using ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the CINAHL database of nursing and allied health services, the open access ProQuest dissertation database, papers and reports from the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) and abstract books from annual scientific conferences.\nDate of last search: 04 January 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people on continuous treatment with VKAs or DOACs undergoing oral or dental procedures using antifibrinolytic agents (tranexamic acid (TXA) or epsilon aminocaproic acid) to prevent perioperative bleeding compared to no intervention or usual care with or without placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of all identified articles. Full texts were obtained from potentially relevant abstracts and two authors independently assessed these for inclusion based of the selection criteria. A third author verified trial eligibility. Two authors independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using standardized forms. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nNo eligible trials in people on continuous treatment with DOACs undergoing oral or dental procedures were identified.\nThree randomised trials and one quasi-randomised trial (follow-up in all was seven days) in people on continuous treatment with VKAs were included with a total of 253 participants (mean age 60 years). Two trials published in 1989 and 1993 compared the antifibrinolytic agent TXA with placebo in people using VKAs. Two other trials were published in 1999 and 2015 and compared TXA with gelatin sponge and sutures, and dry gauze compression, respectively. In all included trials, those who were treated with VKAs had international normalised ratio (INR) values within the therapeutic range and TXA was applied locally, not systemically.\nThe two trials from 1989 and 1993 comparing TXA with placebo showed a statistically significant beneficial effect regarding the number of major postoperative bleeding episodes requiring intervention, with a pooled risk difference (RD) of -0.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.36 to -0.14) (128 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). For the two trials that compared TXA with either gelatin sponge and sutures or with dry gauze compression, there was no difference between the TXA and the standard care group, RD 0.02 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.11) (125 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). The combined RD of all included trials was -0.13 (95% CI -0.30 to 0.05) (moderate-quality evidence). There were no side effects of antifibrinolytic therapy that required treatment withdrawal (128 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Despite heterogeneity between trials with respect to the different haemostatic measures used in the control groups, the trials were comparable regarding design and baseline participant characteristics.\nOverall, we considered the risk of bias to be low in the trials comparing TXA with placebo and moderate in the trials comparing TXA with alternative haemostatic measures.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the results of this Cochrane Review, there seems to be a beneficial effect of locally applied TXA in preventing oral bleeding in people on continuous treatment with VKAs undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions. However, the small number of identified randomised controlled trials, the relatively small number of participants included in the trials and the differences in standard therapy and treatment regimens between trials, do not allow us to conclude definite efficacy of antifibrinolytic therapy in this population.\nWe were unable to identify any eligible trials in people on continuous treatment with DOACs undergoing oral or dental procedures. Therefore, a beneficial effect of antifibrinolytic therapy can currently only be assumed based on data from the people using VKAs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "People on continuous oral anticoagulant treatment are at an increased risk of bleeding complications during and after oral surgery or dental extractions. There are two types of oral anticoagulant treatment: vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (e.g. warfarin and coumarin) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (e.g. dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban). DOACs are becoming an increasingly popular alternative for VKAs, traditionally used for preventing blood clotting in people at risk of thrombosis. The number of bleeds and the severity of each bleed depend on medication-related factors (such as the degree of anticoagulation, measured by the international normalised ratio (INR)), surgery-related factors (such as the size of the wound or the number of roots extracted), as well as patient-related factors (such as inflammation of the gums or blood vessel diseases). The INR level is important to determine how well the anticoagulant treatment is preventing blood clots. Within the desired range of the INR level, a person has both the least risk of blood clotting complications and the least risk of excessive bleeding. In routine practice antifibrinolytic medicine is often used before, during and after minor oral surgery or dental extractions for people using oral anticoagulants. The question is whether there is reliable scientific evidence for this practice."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2538 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, relapsing disease of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract that is thought to be associated with a complex interplay between the immune system, the GI tract lining, the environment, and the gut microbiome, leading to an abnormal inflammatory response in genetically susceptible individuals. An altered composition of the gut's native microbiota, known as dysbiosis, may have a major role in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn disease (CD), two subtypes of IBD. There is growing interest in the correction of this underlying dysbiosis using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT).\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and safety profile of FMT for treatment of IBD in adults and children versus autologous FMT, placebo, standard medication, or no intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registries, and the reference sections of published trials through 22 December 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials that studied adults and children with UC or CD. Eligible intervention arms used FMT, defined as the delivery of healthy donor stool containing gut microbiota to a recipient's GI tract, to treat UC or CD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. Our primary outcomes were: 1. induction of clinical remission, 2. maintenance of clinical remission, and 3. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4. any adverse events, 5. endoscopic remission, 6. quality of life, 7. clinical response, 8. endoscopic response, 9. withdrawals, 10. inflammatory markers, and 11. microbiome outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 12 studies with 550 participants. Three studies were conducted in Australia; two in Canada; and one in each of the following: China, the Czech Republic, France, India, the Netherlands, and the USA. One study was conducted in both Israel and Italy. FMT was administered in the form of capsules or suspensions and delivered by mouth, nasoduodenal tube, enema, or colonoscopy. One study delivered FMT by both oral capsules and colonoscopy. Six studies were at overall low risk of bias, while the others had either unclear or high risk of bias.\nTen studies with 468 participants, of which nine studies focused on adults and one focused on children, reported induction of clinical remission in people with UC at longest follow-up (range 6 to 12 weeks) and showed that FMT may increase rates of induction of clinical remission in UC compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.84; low-certainty evidence). Five studies showed that FMT may increase rates of induction of endoscopic remission in UC at longest follow-up (range 8 to 12 weeks); however, the CIs around the summary estimate were wide and included a possible null effect (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.29; low-certainty evidence). Nine studies with 417 participants showed that FMT may result in little to no difference in rates of any adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.55; very low-certainty evidence) and improvement in quality of life (mean difference (MD) 15.34, 95% CI −3.84 to 34.52; very low-certainty evidence) when FMT was used to induce remission in UC.\nTwo studies, of which one also contributed data for induction of remission in active UC, assessed maintenance of remission in people with controlled UC at longest follow-up (range 48 to 56 weeks). The evidence was very uncertain about the use of FMT for maintenance of clinical remission (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.26 to 34.42; very low-certainty evidence) and endoscopic remission (RR 3.28, 95% CI 0.73 to 14.74; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was also very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events, risk of any adverse events, and improvement in quality of life when FMT was used to maintain remission in UC.\nNone of the included studies assessed use of FMT for induction of remission in people with CD.\nOne study with 21 participants reported data on FMT for maintenance of remission in people with CD. The evidence was very uncertain about the use of FMT for maintenance of clinical remission in CD at 24 weeks (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.14; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was also very uncertain about the risk of serious or any adverse events when FMT was used to maintain remission in CD. None of the studies reported data on use of FMT for maintenance of endoscopic remission or improvement in quality of life in people with CD.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFMT may increase the proportion of people with active UC who achieve clinical and endoscopic remission. The evidence was very uncertain about whether use of FMT in people with active UC impacted the risk of serious adverse events or improvement in quality of life. The evidence was also very uncertain about the use of FMT for maintenance of remission in people with UC, as well as induction and maintenance of remission in people with CD, and no conclusive statements could be made in this regard. Further studies are needed to address the beneficial effects and safety profile of FMT in adults and children with active UC and CD, as well as its potential to promote longer-term maintenance of remission in UC and CD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review is an update of our previous review that was published in 2018. The evidence is up-to-date as of 22 December 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2539 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIt is generally accepted that taxanes are among the most active chemotherapy agents in the management of metastatic breast cancer. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to compare taxane-containing chemotherapy regimens with regimens not containing a taxane in the management of women with metastatic breast cancer.\nSearch methods\nIn this review update, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 February 2013 using keywords such as 'advanced breast cancer' and 'chemotherapy'. We searched reference lists of articles, contacted study authors, and did not apply any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing taxane-containing chemotherapy regimens to regimens without taxanes in women with metastatic breast cancer. We included published and unpublished studies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We derived hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival, time to progression, and time to treatment failure where possible, and used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis. We represented objective tumour response rates and toxicity as risk ratios (RRs). We extracted quality of life data where present.\nMain results\nThis review included 28 studies. The updated analysis included 6871 randomised women, while the original review had 3643 women. Of the 28 included studies, we considered 19 studies to be at low risk of bias overall; however, some studies failed to report details on allocation concealment and methods of outcome assessment for those outcomes that are more likely to be influenced by a lack of blinding (for example tumour response rate). Studies varied in the taxane-containing chemotherapy backbone, and the comparator arms and were categorised into three groups: Regimen A plus taxane versus Regimen A (2 studies); Regimen A plus taxane versus Regimen B (14 studies); and single-agent taxane versus Regimen C (13 studies). Thirteen studies used paclitaxel, 14 studies used docetaxel, and 1 study allowed the investigator to decide on the type of taxane; the majority of studies delivered a taxane every 3 weeks. Twenty studies administered taxanes as first-line treatment, and 21 studies involved anthracycline naïve women in the metastatic setting. The combined HR for overall survival and time to progression favoured the taxane-containing regimens (HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.002, deaths = 4477; and HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97, P = 0.002, estimated 5122 events, respectively) with moderate to substantial heterogeneity across trials. If the analyses were restricted to studies of first-line chemotherapy, this effect persisted for overall survival (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.99, P = 0.03) but not for time to progression (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.02, P = 0.22). Tumour response rates appeared to be better with taxane-containing chemotherapy in assessable women (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.27, P < 0.00001) with substantial heterogeneity across studies. Taxanes were associated with an increased risk of neurotoxicity (RR 4.84, 95% CI 3.18 to 7.35, P < 0.00001, 24 studies) and hair loss (RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.87, P = 0.0006, 11 studies) but less nausea/vomiting compared to non-taxane-containing regimens (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.83, P = 0.001, 26 studies). Leukopaenia and treatment-related death did not differ between the two groups (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17, P = 0.16, 28 studies; and RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.57, P = 0.99, 23 studies, respectively). For quality of life measures, none of the individual studies reported a difference in overall or any of quality of life subscales between taxane-containing and non-taxane chemotherapy regimens.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTaxane-containing regimens appear to improve overall survival, time to progression, and tumour response rate in women with metastatic breast cancer. Taxanes are also associated with an increased risk of neurotoxicity but less nausea and vomiting compared to non-taxane-containing regimens. The considerable heterogeneity encountered across studies probably reflects the varying efficacy of the comparator regimens used in these studies and indicates that taxane-containing regimens are more effective than some, but not all, non-taxane-containing regimens.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to February 2013. We included 28 studies that randomised 6871 women. Women were assigned to receive either a taxane-containing chemotherapy regimen (single taxane or in combination with other chemotherapy drugs) or a non-taxane chemotherapy regimen. There were variations in the taxane-containing chemotherapy regimen and the non-taxane treatments. Approximately half of the studies used paclitaxel and the other half used docetaxel, and in the majority of cases, taxanes were administered every three weeks. Of the 28 studies, 20 studies included women who received taxanes as their first treatment after their diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer, and 21 studies involved women who had not been previously treated with anthracyclines in the metastatic setting. From those studies reporting median follow-up, this ranged from 9 months to 69 months."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2540 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPolycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by both metabolic and reproductive disorders, and affects 5% to 15% of women of reproductive age. Different western medicines have been proposed for PCOS-related subfertility, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitisers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) have also been used for subfertility caused by PCOS for decades, and are expected to become an alternative treatment for subfertile women with PCOS.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, from inception to 2 June 2020. In addition, we searched three trials registries, the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHM versus placebo, no treatment or conventional (western) therapies for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs with 609 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (EE/CPA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low.\nNone of the included studies reported the primary outcome, live birth rate. Most studies reported the secondary outcomes, and only one study reported data on adverse events.\nIn trials that compared CHM to clomiphene (with or without LOD in both study arms), we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 3.19; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 140 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 21.5%, the chance following CHM would vary between 14.7% and 46.7%. No study reported data on adverse events.\nWhen CHM plus clomiphene was compared to clomiphene (with or without EE/CPA), there was low certainty evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 3.06, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.55; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 470 participants; low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 31.5%, the chance following CHM plus clomiphene would vary between 48.5% and 67.7%.\nNo data were reported on adverse events.\nIn trials that compared CHM plus follicle aspiration and ovulation induction to follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.68; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction is assumed to be 29.2%, the chance following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would vary between 15.9% and 70%. Reported adverse events included severe luteinised unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence) or multiple pregnancy (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). These results suggest that if the chances of LUFS, OHSS, and multiple pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction are assumed to be 8.3%, 4.2%, and 8.3% respectively, the chances following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would be 0.5% to 35.8%, 0% to 26.3% and 0.5% to 35.8% respectively.\nIn trials that compared CHM plus LOD to LOD alone, we are uncertain if CHM improves pregnancy rates (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; 1 study, 30 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following LOD is assumed to be 40%, the chance following CHM with LOD would vary between 32.4% and 91.9%. No data were reported on adverse events.\nWe are uncertain of the results in the comparison groups for all outcomes. The certainty of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS. No data are available on live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates for there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However, we find that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates, but there is very limited, low certainty evidence for this outcome. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe. In the future, well-designed, carefully conducted RCTs are needed, with a particular focus on the live birth rate and other safety indexes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence about the effect of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) on rates of live birth pregnancy and adverse events in subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2541 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnorexia nervosa (AN) is characterised by a failure to maintain a normal body weight due to a paucity of nutrition, an intense fear of gaining weight or behaviour that prevents the individual from gaining weight, or both. The long-term prognosis is often poor, with severe developmental, medical and psychosocial complications, high rates of relapse and mortality. 'Family therapy approaches' indicate a range of approaches, derived from different theories, that involve the family in treatment. We have included therapies developed on the basis of dominant family systems theories, approaches that are based on or broadly similar to the family-based therapy derived from the Maudsley model, approaches that incorporate a focus on cognitive restructuring, as well as approaches that involve the family without articulation of a theoretical approach.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of family therapy approaches compared with standard treatment and other treatments for AN.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) and PsycINFO (OVID) (all years to April 2016). We ran additional searches directly on Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PsycINFO (to 2008 and 2016 to 2018). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov, together with four theses databases (all years to 2018). We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. We have included in the analyses only studies from searches conducted to April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of family therapy approaches compared to any other intervention or other types of family therapy approaches were eligible for inclusion.\nWe included participants of any age or gender with a primary clinical diagnosis of anorexia nervosa.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors selected the studies, assessed quality and extracted data. We used a random-effects meta-analysis. We used the risk ratio (with a 95% confidence interval) to summarise dichotomous outcomes and both the standardised mean difference and the mean difference to summarise continuous measures.\nMain results\nWe included 25 trials in this version of the review (13 from the original 2010 review and 12 newly-included studies). Sixteen trials were of adolescents, eight trials of adults (seven of these in young adults aged up to 26 years) and one trial included three age groups: one adolescent, one young adult and one adult. Most investigated family-based therapy or variants. Reporting of trial conduct was generally inadequate, so that in a large number of studies we rated the risk of bias as unclear for many of the domains. Selective reporting bias was particularly problematic, with 68% of studies rated at high risk of bias in this area, followed by incomplete outcome data, with 44% of studies rated at high risk of bias in this area. For the main outcome measure of remission there was some low-quality evidence (from only two studies, 81 participants) suggesting that family therapy approaches might offer some advantage over treatment as usual on rates of remission, post intervention (risk ratio (RR) 3.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 8.23; I2 = 0%). However, at follow-up, low-quality evidence from only one study suggested this effect was not maintained. There was very low-quality evidence from only one trial, which means it is difficult to determine whether family therapy approaches offer any advantage over educational interventions for remission (RR 9.00, 95% CI 0.53 to 153.79; 1 study, N = 30). Similarly, there was very low-quality evidence from only five trials for remission post-intervention, again meaning that it is difficult to determine whether there is any advantage of family therapy approaches over psychological interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67; participants = 252; studies = 5; I2 = 37%) and at long-term follow-up (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; participants = 200; studies = 4 with 1 of these contributing 3 pairwise comparisons for different age groups; I2 = 0%). There was no indication that the age group had any impact on the overall treatment effect; however, it should be noted that there were very few trials undertaken in adults, with the age range of adult studies included in this analysis from 20 to 27. There was some evidence of a small effect favouring family based therapy compared with other psychological interventions in terms of weight gain post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.63; participants = 210; studies = 4 with 1 of these contributing 3 pairwise comparisons for different age groups; I2 = 11%) . Overall, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there were any differences between groups across all comparisons for most of the secondary outcomes (weight, eating disorder psychopathology, dropouts, relapse, or family functioning measures), either at post-intervention or at follow-up.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a limited amount of low-quality evidence to suggest that family therapy approaches may be effective compared to treatment as usual in the short term. This finding is based on two trials that included only a small number of participants, and both had issues about potential bias. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is an advantage of family therapy approaches in people of any age compared to educational interventions (one study, very low quality) or other psychological therapies (five studies, very low quality). Most studies contributing to this finding were undertaken in adolescents and youth. There are clear potential impacts on how family therapy approaches might be delivered to different age groups and further work is required to understand what the resulting effects on treatment efficacy might be. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether one type of family therapy approach is more effective than another. The field would benefit from further large, well-conducted trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Authors' conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Overall, there is a very limited evidence base in this field. There is some low-quality evidence to suggest that family therapy approaches may be effective compared to treatment as usual in the short term. There is insufficient evidence to be able to determine whether family therapy approaches offer any advantage over educational interventions, other types of psychological therapy, or whether one type of family therapy approach is more effective than another. Most of the studies contributing to the findings were undertaken in adolescents and young adults. There are clear implications about how family therapy approaches might be delivered to different age groups, and we need further research to understand what the resulting effects on treatment might be."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2542 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCaries is one of the most prevalent and preventable conditions worldwide. If identified early enough then non-invasive techniques can be applied, and therefore this review focusses on early caries involving the enamel surface of the tooth. The cornerstone of caries detection is a visual and tactile dental examination, however alternative methods of detection are available, and these include fluorescence-based devices. There are three categories of fluorescence-based device each primarily defined by the different wavelengths they exploit; we have labelled these groups as red, blue, and green fluorescence. These devices could support the visual examination for the detection and diagnosis of caries at an early stage of decay.\nObjectives\nOur primary objectives were to estimate the diagnostic test accuracy of fluorescence-based devices for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries in children or adults. We planned to investigate the following potential sources of heterogeneity: tooth surface (occlusal, proximal, smooth surface or adjacent to a restoration); single point measurement devices versus imaging or surface assessment devices; and the prevalence of more severe disease in each study sample, at the level of caries into dentine.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 30 May 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 30 May 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 30 May 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 30 May 2019). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included diagnostic accuracy study designs that compared a fluorescence-based device with a reference standard. This included prospective studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of single index tests and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. Studies that explicitly recruited participants with caries into dentine or frank cavitation were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data independently using a piloted study data extraction form based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for each study. This information has been displayed as coupled forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) plots, displaying the sensitivity-specificity points for each study. We estimated diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) methods. We reported sensitivities at fixed values of specificity (median 0.78, upper quartile 0.90).\nMain results\nWe included a total of 133 studies, 55 did not report data in the 2 x 2 format and could not be included in the meta-analysis. 79 studies which provided 114 datasets and evaluated 21,283 tooth surfaces were included in the meta-analysis. There was a high risk of bias for the participant selection domain. The index test, reference standard, and flow and timing domains all showed a high proportion of studies to be at low risk of bias. Concerns regarding the applicability of the evidence were high or unclear for all domains, the highest proportion being seen in participant selection. Selective participant recruitment, poorly defined diagnostic thresholds, and in vitro studies being non-generalisable to the clinical scenario of a routine dental examination were the main reasons for these findings. The dominance of in vitro studies also means that the information on how the results of these devices are used to support diagnosis, as opposed to pure detection, was extremely limited. There was substantial variability in the results which could not be explained by the different devices or dentition or other sources of heterogeneity that we investigated. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 14.12 (95% CI 11.17 to 17.84).\nThe estimated sensitivity, at a fixed median specificity of 0.78, was 0.70 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.75). In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 tooth sites or surfaces, with a prevalence of enamel caries of 57%, obtained from the included studies, the estimated sensitivity of 0.70 and specificity of 0.78 would result in 171 missed tooth sites or surfaces with enamel caries (false negatives) and 95 incorrectly classed as having early caries (false positives).\nWe used meta-regression to compare the accuracy of the different devices for red fluorescence (84 datasets, 14,514 tooth sites), blue fluorescence (21 datasets, 3429 tooth sites), and green fluorescence (9 datasets, 3340 tooth sites) devices. Initially, we allowed threshold, shape, and accuracy to vary according to device type by including covariates in the model. Allowing consistency of shape, removal of the covariates for accuracy had only a negligible effect (Chi2 = 3.91, degrees of freedom (df) = 2, P = 0.14).\nDespite the relatively large volume of evidence we rated the certainty of the evidence as low, downgraded two levels in total, for risk of bias due to limitations in the design and conduct of the included studies, indirectness arising from the high number of in vitro studies, and inconsistency due to the substantial variability of results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is considerable variation in the performance of these fluorescence-based devices that could not be explained by the different wavelengths of the devices assessed, participant, or study characteristics. Blue and green fluorescence-based devices appeared to outperform red fluorescence-based devices but this difference was not supported by the results of a formal statistical comparison. The evidence base was considerable, but we were only able to include 79 studies out of 133 in the meta-analysis as estimates of sensitivity or specificity values or both could not be extracted or derived. In terms of applicability, any future studies should be carried out in a clinical setting, where difficulties of caries assessment within the oral cavity include plaque, staining, and restorations. Other considerations include the potential of fluorescence devices to be used in combination with other technologies and comparative diagnostic accuracy studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the implications of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Because of the wide variation in performance that cannot be easily explained the interpretation of results is difficult. The proportion of cases missed or incorrectly diagnosed as evidence of caries is relatively high. Important information was missing from many of the included studies. Any future studies should be carried out in a clinical setting, and look at the potential of fluorescence devices to be used alongside other devices."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2543 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEpidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non-squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men, is less associated with smoking, but occurs at a younger age than sporadic tumours.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical effectiveness of single-agent or combination EGFR therapies used in the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR M+ NSCLC compared with other cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) agents used alone or in combination, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes included response rate, symptom palliation, toxicity, and health-related quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2020, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 27th July 2020), Embase (1980 to 27th July 2020), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 27th July 2020). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (July 2020); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nParallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing EGFR-targeted agents (alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents or BSC) with cytotoxic chemotherapy (single or doublet) or BSC in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) EGFR M+ NSCLC unsuitable for treatment with curative intent.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified articles, extracted data, and carried out the 'Risk of bias' assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case we also performed a random-effects analysis as a sensitivity analysis.\nMain results\nTwenty-two trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten of these exclusively recruited people with EGFR M+ NSCLC; the remainder recruited a mixed population and reported results for people with EGFR M+ NSCLC as subgroup analyses. The number of participants with EGFR M+ tumours totalled 3023, of whom approximately 2563 were of Asian origin.\nOverall survival (OS) data showed inconsistent results between the included trials that compared EGFR-targeted treatments against cytotoxic chemotherapy or placebo.\nErlotinib was used in eight trials, gefitinib in nine trials, afatinib in two trials, cetuximab in two trials, and icotinib in one trial. The findings of FASTACT 2 suggested a clinical benefit for OS for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, as did the Han 2017 trial for gefitinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy, but both results were based on a small number of participants (n = 97 and 122, respectively).\nFor progression-free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of four trials showed evidence of clinical benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.39 ; 583 participants ; high-certainty evidence). A pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48 ; 491 participants high-certainty evidence), and a pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus pemetrexed plus carboplatin with pemetrexed maintenance also showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, 371 participants ; moderate-certainty evidence). Afatinib showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of two trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53, 709 participants high-certainty evidence). All but one small trial showed a corresponding improvement in response rate with tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) compared to chemotherapy.\nCommonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events associated with afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and icotinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms; fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies.\nSeven trials reported on health-related quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, two trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the TKI compared to chemotherapy.\nThe quality of evidence was high for the comparisons of erlotinib and gefitinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy and for the comparison of afatinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nErlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged PFS compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adverse effect and health-related quality of life. We found limited evidence for increased OS for the TKI when compared with standard chemotherapy, but the majority of the included trials allowed participants to switch treatments on disease progression, which will have a confounding effect on any OS analysis. Single agent-TKI remains the standard of care and the benefit of combining a TKI and chemotherapy remains uncertain as the evidence is based on small patient numbers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in EGFR M+ NSCLC than erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib or icotinib and is associated with greater toxicity. There are no data supporting the use of monoclonal antibody therapy. Icotinib is not available outside China.\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": "Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib delay further spread of EGFR M+ lung cancer and improve health-related quality of life. Giving cetuximab with chemotherapy is no better at controlling this type of cancer or extending life than chemotherapy alone."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2544 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDisease activity can be determined using clinical, endoscopic or histologic criteria in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Persistent disease activity is associated with poor outcomes. Histologic disease activity has been shown to be associated with relapse, colectomy and colorectal cancer. The ability to objectively evaluate microscopic disease activity using histology is important for both clinical practice and clinical trials. However, the operating properties of the currently available histologic indices remain unclear.\nObjectives\nA systematic review was undertaken to identify and evaluate the development and operating characteristics of histologic disease activity indices used to assess disease activity in people with ulcerative colitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL and the Cochrane IBD Review Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 2 December 2016 for applicable studies. There were no language or document type restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nAny study design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series) that evaluated a histologic index in patients with UC were considered for inclusion. Eligible patients were adults (> 18 years), diagnosed with UC using conventional clinical, radiographic, endoscopic and histologic criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors (MHM and CEP) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies identified from the literature search. A standardized form was used to assess eligibility of trials for inclusion and for data extraction.\nTwo authors (MHM and CEP) independently extracted and recorded data, which included the number of patients enrolled, number of patients per treatment arm, patient characteristics including age and gender distribution, and the name of the histologic index. Outcomes (i.e. intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, content validity, criterion validity, construct validity, responsiveness, and feasibility) were recorded for each trial.\nMain results\nIn total, 126 reports describing 30 scoring indices were identified through the screening process. Eleven of the 30 scoring indices have undergone some form of index validation. Intra-rater reliability was assessed for eight scoring indices. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated for all 11 of the scoring indices. Three of the indices underwent content validation. Two of the included scoring indices assessed criterion validity. Six of the included scoring indices explored content validity. Two of the included scoring indices were tested for responsiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe Nancy Index and the Robarts Histopathology Index have undergone the most validation in that four operating properties including reliability, content validity, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and criterion validity have been tested. However, none of the currently available histologic scoring indices have been fully validated. In order to determine the optimal endpoint for histologic healing in UC, more research is required. The optimal index would need to be fully validated.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did the researchers find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The researchers found that 11 out of the 30 histologic scoring indices that exist have been partially validated. The Nancy Index and the Robarts Histopathology Index have undergone the most validation compared to the other nine indices. However, none of the currently available histologic scoring indices have been fully validated. In order to determine the ideal index to measure histologic healing in UC, more research is required. The ideal index would need to be fully validated."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2545 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDepressive disorders are common in children and adolescents and, if left untreated, are likely to recur in adulthood. Depression is highly debilitating, affecting psychosocial, family and academic functioning.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies and antidepressant medication, alone and in combination, for the treatment of depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We have examined clinical outcomes including remission, clinician and self reported depression measures, and suicide-related outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 11 June 2014. The register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date).\nSelection criteria\nRCTs were eligible for inclusion if they compared i) any psychological therapy with any antidepressant medication, or ii) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a psychological therapy alone, or an antidepressant medication alone, or iii) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a placebo or'treatment as usual', or (iv) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a psychological therapy or antidepressant medication plus a placebo.\nWe included studies if they involved participants aged between 6 and 18 years, diagnosed by a clinician as having Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies. We applied a random-effects meta-analysis, using the odds ratio (OR) to describe dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) to describe continuous outcomes when the same measures were used, and standard mean difference (SMD) when outcomes were measured on different scales.\nMain results\nWe included eleven studies, involving 1307 participants in this review. We also identified one ongoing study, and two additional ongoing studies that may be eligible for inclusion. Studies recruited participants with different severities of disorder and with a variety of comorbid disorders, including anxiety and substance use disorder, therefore limiting the comparability of the results. Regarding the risk of bias in studies, just under half the studies had adequate allocation concealment (there was insufficient information to determine allocation concealment in the remainder), outcome assessors were blind to the participants' intervention in six studies, and in general, studies reported on incomplete data analysis methods, mainly using intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. For the majority of outcomes there were no statistically significant differences between the interventions compared. There was limited evidence (based on two studies involving 220 participants) that antidepressant medication was more effective than psychotherapy on measures of clinician defined remission immediately post-intervention (odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.98), with 67.8% of participants in the medication group and 53.7% in the psychotherapy group rated as being in remission. There was limited evidence (based on three studies involving 378 participants) that combination therapy was more effective than antidepressant medication alone in achieving higher remission from a depressive episode immediately post-intervention (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.47), with 65.9% of participants treated with combination therapy and 57.8% of participants treated with medication, rated as being in remission. There was no evidence to suggest that combination therapy was more effective than psychological therapy alone, based on clinician rated remission immediately post-intervention (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.68).\nSuicide-related Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) were reported in various ways across studies and could not be combined in meta-analyses. However, some trials measured suicidal ideation using standardised assessment tools suitable for meta-analysis. In one study involving 188 participants, rates of suicidal ideation were significantly higher in the antidepressant medication group (18.6%) compared with the psychological therapy group (5.4%) (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.72) and this effect appeared to remain at six to nine months (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.98), with 13.6% of participants in the medication group and 3.9% of participants in the psychological therapy group reporting suicidal ideation. It was unclear what the effect of combination therapy was compared with either antidepressant medication alone or psychological therapy alone on rates of suicidal ideation. The impact of any of the assigned treatment packages on drop out was also mostly unclear across the various comparisons in the review.\nLimited data and conflicting results based on other outcome measures make it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of any specific intervention based on these outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very limited evidence upon which to base conclusions about the relative effectiveness of psychological interventions, antidepressant medication and a combination of these interventions. On the basis of the available evidence, the effectiveness of these interventions for treating depressive disorders in children and adolescents cannot be established. Further appropriately powered RCTs are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"'\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "'treatment as usual'; (4) any combination of these therapies (a psychological therapy plus antidepressant medication) with either therapy plus a placebo.\nWe included 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1307 participants in this review. These trials made a variety of different comparisons and only a small number of trials contributed information about each of the comparisons made in the review. Although most analyses included more than one trial, the results of these trials sometimes differed considerably or were even contradictory. In terms of adverse effects of treatment, in one trial, rates of suicidal thoughts were higher in those taking antidepressant medication, compared with those delivered psychological therapy. Overall, it was not possible to draw robust conclusions from the meta-analyses, nor to establish which intervention strategy was most effective.\nIn summary, on the basis of the available evidence, we do not know whether psychological therapy, antidepressant medication or a combination of the two is most effective to treat depressive disorders in children and adolescents."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2546 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTransient tachypnea of the newborn is characterized by tachypnea and signs of respiratory distress. Transient tachypnea typically appears within the first two hours of life in term and late preterm newborns. Although transient tachypnea of the newborn is usually a self limited condition, it is associated with wheezing syndromes in late childhood. The rationale for the use of epinephrine (adrenaline) for transient tachypnea of the newborn is based on studies showing that β-agonists can accelerate the rate of alveolar fluid clearance.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether epinephrine compared to placebo, no treatment or any other drugs (excluding salbutamol) is effective and safe in the treatment of transient tachypnea of the newborn in infants born at 34 weeks' gestational age or more.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1996 to March 2016), EMBASE (1980 to March 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to March 2016). We applied no language restrictions. We searched the abstracts of the major congresses in the field (Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Pediatric Academic Societies) from 2000 to 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials and cluster trials comparing epinephrine versus placebo or no treatment or any other drugs administered to infants born at 34 weeks' gestational age or more and less than three days of age with transient tachypnea of the newborn.\nData collection and analysis\nFor the included trial, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, duration of oxygen therapy (hours), need for continuous positive airway pressure and need for mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review were duration of oxygen therapy (hours), need for continuous positive airway pressure and need for mechanical ventilation.\nMain results\nOne trial, which included 20 infants, met the inclusion criteria of this review. Study authors administered three doses of nebulized 2.25% racemic epinephrine or placebo. We found no differences between the two group in the duration of supplemental oxygen therapy (mean difference (MD) -6.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -54.80 to 41.60 hours) and need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.88; risk difference (RD) -0.07, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.32). Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of initiation of oral feeding. The quality of the evidence was limited due to the imprecision of the estimates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present there is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of epinephrine in the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn.\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 medical literature searches complete to March 2016, we identified and included one trial with 20 newborns comparing epinephrine with placebo."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2547 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPrimary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings.\nTo assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nWe included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk.\nWe identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants).\nThere was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions.\nThirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why we did this Cochrane Review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Support to stop smoking in primary care is not always delivered well or consistently. Health providers may be unsure how best to deliver treatment, may have limited time to deliver it, or lack the resources needed. Ways to improve the delivery and success of stop-smoking support in primary care have been suggested. Some of these are designed to make sure the treatment already available is delivered often and well, e.g. training providers on how best to help people quit, and some are designed to increase the support available for participants, e.g. providing additional counseling and printed materials. Our aim was to look at which of these approaches works best on their own or together."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2548 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRates of major depression among people living with HIV (PLWH) are substantially higher than those seen in the general population and this may adversely affect antiretroviral treatment outcomes. Several unique clinical and psychosocial factors may contribute to the development and persistence of depression in PLWH. Given these influences, it is unclear if antidepressant therapy is as effective for PLWH as the general population.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of antidepressant therapy for treatment of depression in PLWH.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's specialised register (CCMD-CTR), the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and ran a cited reference search on the Web of Science for reports of all included studies. We conducted additional searches of the international trial registers including; ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization Trials Portal (ICTRP), and the HIV and AIDS - Clinical trials register. We searched grey literature and reference lists to identify additional studies and contacted authors to obtain missing data. We applied no restrictions on date, language or publication status to the searches, which included studies conducted between 1 January 1980 and 18 April 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials of antidepressant drug therapy compared to placebo or another antidepressant drug class. Participants eligible for inclusion had to be aged 18 years and older, from any setting, and have both HIV and depression. Depression was defined according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Statistical Classification of Diseases criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted data. We presented categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Continuous outcomes were presented mean (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with standard deviations (SD). We assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies with 709 participants in this review. Of the 10 studies, eight were conducted in high income countries (USA and Italy), seven were conducted prior to 2000 and seven had predominantly men. Seven studies assessed antidepressants versus placebo, two compared different antidepressant classes and one had three arms comparing two antidepressant classes with placebo.\nAntidepressant therapy may result in a greater improvement in depression compared to placebo. There was a moderate improvement in depression when assessed with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score as a continuous outcome (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; participants = 357; studies = 6; I2 = 62%, low quality evidence). However, there was no evidence of improvement when this was assessed with HAM-D score as a dichotomized outcome (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.35; participants = 434; studies = 5; I2 = 0%, low quality evidence) or Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) score (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.77; participants = 346; studies = 4; I2 = 29%, low quality evidence). There was little to no difference in the proportion of study dropouts between study arms (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.80; participants = 306; studies = 4; I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence).\nThe methods of reporting adverse events varied substantially between studies, this resulted in very low quality evidence contributing to a pooled estimate (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.21; participants = 167; studies = 2; I2 = 34%; very low quality evidence). Based on this, we were unable to determine if there was a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in the antidepressant versus placebo arms. However, sexual dysfunction was reported commonly in people receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). People receiving tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) frequently reported anticholinergic adverse effects such as dry mouth and constipation. There were no reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events in any study group.\nThere was no evidence of a difference in follow-up CD4 count at study termination (MD -6.31 cells/mm3, 95% CI -72.76 to 60.14; participants = 176; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence). Only one study evaluated quality of life score (MD 3.60, 95% CI -0.38 to 7.58; participants = 87; studies = 1; very low quality evidence), due to the poor quality evidence we could not draw conclusions for this outcome.\nThere were few studies comparing different antidepressant classes. We are uncertain if SSRIs differ from TCAs with regard to improvement in depression as evaluated by HAM-D score (MD -3.20, 95% CI -10.87 to 4.47; participants = 14; studies = 1; very low quality evidence). There was some evidence that mirtazapine resulted in a greater improvement in depression compared to an SSRI (MD 9.00, 95% CI 3.61 to 14.39; participants = 70; studies = 1; low quality evidence); however, this finding was not consistent for all measures of improvement in depression for this comparison.\nNo studies reported on virological suppression or any other HIV specific outcomes.\nThe studies included in this review had an overall unclear or high risk of bias due to under-reporting of study methods, high risk of attrition bias and inadequate sequence generation methods. Heterogeneity between studies and the limited number of participants, and events lead to downgrading of the quality of the evidence for several outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review demonstrates that antidepressant therapy may be more beneficial than placebo for the treatment of depression in PLWH. The low quality of the evidence contributing to this assessment and the lack of studies representing PLWH from generalized epidemics in low- to middle-income countries make the relevance of these finding in today's context limited. Future studies that evaluate the effectiveness of antidepressant therapy should be designed and conducted rigorously. Such studies should incorporate evaluation of stepped care models and health system strengthening interventions in the study design. In addition, outcomes related to HIV care and antiretroviral therapy should be reported.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What questions does this review aim to answer?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- Are antidepressant medicines more effective than using a placebo (pretend treatment) for treatment of depression in PLWH?\n- Do more people stop attending services (dropout) if they are receiving antidepressant medicines compared to placebos?\n- Are there any serious side effects to antidepressant medicines which specifically affect PLWH?\n- Which type of antidepressant medicine is most effective for depressed PLWH?\n- Does treating depression with antidepressants in PLWH improve antiretroviral treatment outcomes among people also receiving HIV treatment?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2549 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPremenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a psychological and somatic disorder of unknown aetiology, with symptoms typically including irritability, depression, mood swings, bloating, breast tenderness and sleep disturbances. About 3% to 10% of women who experience these symptoms may also meet criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). PMS symptoms recur during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle and reduce by the end of menstruation. PMS results from ovulation and may be due to ovarian steroid interactions relating to neurotransmitter dysfunction. Premenstrual disorders have a devastating effect on women, their families and their work.\nSeveral treatment options have been suggested for PMS, including pharmacological and surgical interventions. The treatments thought to be most effective tend to fall into one of two categories: suppressing ovulation or correcting a speculated neuroendocrine anomaly.\nTransdermal oestradiol by patch, gel or implant effectively stops ovulation and the cyclical hormonal changes which produce the cyclical symptoms. These preparations are normally used for hormone therapy and contain lower doses of oestrogen than found in oral contraceptive pills. A shortened seven-day course of a progestogen is required each month for endometrial protection but can reproduce premenstrual syndrome-type symptoms in these women.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of non-contraceptive oestrogen-containing preparations in the management of PMS.\nSearch methods\nOn 14 March 2016, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO); MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; ClinicalTrials.gov; metaRegister of Controlled trials (mRCT); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles retrieved.\nSelection criteria\nWe included published and unpublished randomized placebo or active controlled trials on the efficacy of the use of non-contraceptive oestrogen-containing preparations in the management of premenstrual syndrome in women of reproductive age with PMS diagnosed by at least two prospective cycles without current psychiatric disorder.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data on premenstrual symptoms and adverse effects and entered data into Review Manager 5 software. Where possible, intention-to-treat or modified intention-to-treat analysis was used. Studies were pooled using a fixed-effect model, analysing cross-over trials as parallel trials. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for premenstrual symptom scores. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE working group methods.\nMain results\nThe search resulted in 524 potentially relevant articles. Five eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified (305 women). Trials using oral tablets, transdermal patches and implants were identified. No trial used gels.\nOne small cross-over trial (11 women, effective sample size 22 women considering cross-over trials) compared oral luteal-phase oestrogen versus placebo. Data were very low quality and unsuitable for analysis, but study authors reported that the intervention was ineffective and might aggravate the symptoms of PMS. They also reported that there were no adverse events.\nThree studies compared continuous oestrogen with progestogen versus placebo (with or without progestogen). These trials were of reasonable quality, although with a high risk of attrition bias and an unclear risk of bias due to potential carry-over effects in two cross-over trials. Continuous oestrogen had a small to moderate positive effect on global symptom scores (SMD −0.34, 95% CI −0.59 to −0.10, P = 0.005, 3 RCTs, 158 women, effective sample size 267 women, I² = 63%, very low quality evidence). The evidence was too imprecise to determine if the groups differed in withdrawal rates due to adverse effects (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.58, P = 0.33, 3 RCTs, 196 women, effective sample size 284 women, I² = 0%, very low quality evidence). Similarly, the evidence was very imprecise in measures of specific adverse events, with large uncertainties around the true value of the relative risk. None of the studies reported on long-term risks such as endometrial cancer or breast cancer.\nOne study compared patch dosage (100 vs 200 µg oestrogen, with progestogen in both arms) and had a high risk of performance bias, detection bias and attrition bias. The study did not find evidence that dosage affects global symptoms but there was much uncertainty around the effect estimate (SMD −1.55, 95% CI −8.88 to 5.78, P = 0.68, 1 RCT, 98 women, very low quality evidence). The evidence on rates of withdrawal for adverse events was too imprecise to draw any conclusions (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46, P = 0.34, 1 RCT, 107 women, low-quality evidence). However, it appeared that the 100 µg dose might be associated with a lower overall risk of adverse events attributed to oestrogen (RR 0.51, 95% Cl 0.26 to 0.99, P = 0.05, 1 RCT, 107 women, very low quality evidence) with a large uncertainty around the effect estimate.\nThe overall quality of the evidence for all comparisons was very low, mainly due to risk of bias (specifically attrition), imprecision, and statistical and clinical heterogeneity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low quality evidence to support the effectiveness of continuous oestrogen (transdermal patches or subcutaneous implants) plus progestogen, with a small to moderate effect size. We found very low quality evidence from a study based on 11 women to suggest that luteal-phase oral unopposed oestrogen is probably ineffective and possibly detrimental for controlling the symptoms of PMS. A comparison between 200 µg and 100 µg doses of continuous oestrogen was inconclusive with regard to effectiveness, but suggested that the lower dose was less likely to cause side effects. Uncertainty remains regarding safety, as the identified studies were too small to provide definite answers. Moreover, no included trial addressed adverse effects that might occur beyond the typical trial duration of 2-8 months. This suggests the choice of oestrogen dose and mode of administration could be based on an individual woman’s preference and modified according to the effectiveness and tolerability of the chosen regimen.\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": "PMS is characterised by a range of physical, psychological and behavioural symptoms that are not due to any organic disease, and that occur during the luteal phase (second half) of the menstrual cycle and disappear at the onset of menstruation. It is now thought that the condition is due to complex interactions between ovarian steroids and neurotransmitters. A clinical diagnosis requires that the symptoms are confirmed by prospective recording for at least two menstrual cycles and that they cause substantial distress or impairment to daily life (e.g. work, school, social activities, hobbies, interpersonal relationships)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2550 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPostoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. We defined pre-emptive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive NSAIDs for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL (up to June 2020). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included adult participants undergoing any type of surgery. We defined pre-emptive NSAIDs as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. We included studies that gave the medication by any route but not given on the skin.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods expected by Cochrane, as well as a novel publication bias test developed by our research group. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Outcomes included acute postoperative pain (minimal clinically important difference (MCID): 1.5 on a 0-10 scale), adverse events of NSAIDs, nausea and vomiting, 24-hour morphine consumption (MCID: 10 mg reduction), time to analgesic request (MCID: one hour), pruritus, sedation, patient satisfaction, chronic pain and time to first bowel movement (MCID: 12 hours).\nMain results\nWe included 71 RCTs. Seven studies are awaiting classification. We included 45 studies that evaluated pre-emptive NSAIDs and 26 studies that evaluated preventive NSAIDs. We considered only four studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The operations and NSAIDs used varied, although most studies were conducted in abdominal, orthopaedic and dental surgery. Most studies were conducted in secondary care and in low-risk participants. Common exclusions were participants on analgesic medications prior to surgery and those with chronic pain.\nPre-emptive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs\nFor pre-emptive NSAIDs, there is probably a decrease in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41; studies = 36; participants = 2032; I2 = 96%; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies that reported on acute postoperative pain reported adverse events as an outcome. There may be little or no difference between the groups in short-term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; studies = 2; participants = 100; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or long-term nausea and vomiting (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 228; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00; studies = 28; participants = 1645; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption with pre-emptive NSAIDs (MD -5.62 mg, 95% CI -9.00 mg to -2.24 mg; studies = 16; participants = 854; I2 = 99%; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the time to analgesic request (MD 17.04 minutes, 95% CI 3.77 minutes to 30.31 minutes; studies = 18; participants = 975; I2 = 95%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.76; studies = 4; participants = 254; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or sedation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.68; studies = 4; participants = 281; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), although the number of included studies for these outcomes was small. No study reported patient satisfaction, chronic pain or time to first bowel movement for pre-emptive NSAIDs.\nPreventive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs\nFor preventive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.12; studies = 18; participants = 1140; I2 = 75%; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adverse events from NSAIDs (reoperation for bleeding) although the events were low which did not allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 20.68). There may be little or no difference in rates of short-term (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30; studies = 1; participants = 76; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 456; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence) nausea and vomiting. There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.07; studies = 21; participants = 1441; I2 = 81%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -1.93 mg, 95% CI -3.55 mg to -0.32 mg; studies = 16; participants = 1323; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in time to analgesic request (MD 8.51 minutes, 95% CI -31.24 minutes to 48.27 minutes; studies = 8; participants = 410; I2 = 98%; very low-certainty evidence). As with pre-emptive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in other opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.35; studies = 3; participants = 211; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and sedation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.63; studies = 5; participants = 497; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in patient satisfaction (MD -0.42; 95% CI -1.09 to 0.25; studies = 1; participants = 72; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported on chronic pain. There is probably little or no difference in time to first bowel movement (MD 0.00; 95% CI -15.99 to 15.99; studies = 1; participants = 76; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was some evidence that pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs reduce both pain and morphine consumption, although this was not universal for all pain and morphine consumption outcomes. Any differences found were not clinically significant, although we cannot exclude this in more painful operations. Moreover, without any evidence of reductions in opioid adverse effects, the clinical significance of these results is questionable although few studies reported these outcomes. Only one study reported clinically significant adverse events from NSAIDs administered before surgery and, therefore, we have very few data to assess the safety of either pre-emptive or preventive NSAIDs. Therefore, future research should aim to adhere to the highest methodology and be adequately powered to assess serious adverse events of NSAIDs and reductions in opioid adverse events.\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": "Most people experience pain after surgery that requires strong opioid (similar to morphine) painkillers. These medications are associated with a number of side effects including reduced breathing, a slow heart rate, and low blood pressure, as well as vomiting, sleepiness, itching, and constipation. Reducing the amount of opioids needed after surgery can limit these side effects and improve the patient experience and outcomes. Compared to starting painkillers later, beginning painkillers before making the first cut for surgery may reduce pain sensitivity, and thus lessen the pain experienced. We wanted to find out whether giving NSAID painkillers before surgery was more effective than giving the same painkiller, at the same dose, after surgery."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2551 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThere remains uncertainty about the optimum timing of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation in HIV-positive people with cryptococcal meningitis. This uncertainty is the result of conflicting data on the mortality risk and occurrence of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) when ART is initiated less than four weeks after cryptococcal meningitis treatment is commenced.\nObjectives\nTo compare the outcomes of early initiation of ART (less than four weeks after starting antifungal treatment) versus delayed initiation of ART (four weeks or more after starting antifungal treatment) in HIV-positive people with concurrent cryptococcal meningitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for trials published between 1 January 1980 and 7 August 2017. We additionally searched international trial registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and conference abstracts from the International AIDS Society (IAS) and the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) for ongoing or unpublished studies between 2015 and 2017. We reviewed reference lists of included studies to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early versus delayed ART initiation in HIV-positive people with cryptococcal meningitis. Children, adults, and adolescents from any setting were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted data. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We presented time-to-death data as hazard ratios with 95% CIs. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nFour trials including 294 adult participants met the inclusion criteria of this review. Participants were predominantly from low- and middle-income countries. Two trials treated cryptococcal meningitis with amphotericin B and fluconazole; a third trial used fluconazole monotherapy; and the fourth trial did not specify the antifungal used.\nEarly ART initiation may increase all-cause mortality compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.97; 294 participants, 4 trials; low-certainty evidence). Early ART initiation may reduce relapse of cryptococcal meningitis compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.04; 205 participants, 2 trials, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether early ART initiation increases or reduces cryptococcal IRIS events compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 3.56, 95% CI 0.51 to 25.02; 205 participants, 2 trials; I2 = 54%; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if early ART initiation increases or reduces virological suppression at six months compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.22; 205 participants, 2 trials; I2 statistic = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe were unable to pool results related to rate of fungal clearance for the two trials that reported this outcome; individual trial results indicated that there was no difference in cerebrospinal fluid fungal clearance between trial arms. Similarly, we were unable to pool results on adverse events for the trials reporting on this outcome; individual trial results indicated no difference in the occurrence of grade 3 to 5 adverse events between trial arms.\nThree of the four included trials had an overall low or unclear risk of bias related to the primary outcome of all-cause mortality. However, we assessed one trial as at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting and other bias. This, in addition to the few clinical events and imprecision of effect estimates, led to downgrading of the evidence to low or very low certainty.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review are relevant to HIV-positive adults with cryptococcal meningitis in low- and middle-income countries. These data suggest a higher risk of mortality among people who initiate ART within four weeks of cryptococcal meningitis diagnosis. However, it is unclear if this higher mortality risk is related to cryptococcal meningitis-IRIS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this Cochrane Review was to determine whether initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) within four weeks of cryptococcal meningitis diagnosis resulted in a higher risk of dying or developing other complications than waiting more than four weeks to initiate ART."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2552 | [
{
"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: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included three trials (total of 70 participants aged between 8 and 46 years) in the review.\nTwo trials compared vitamin K to a control. In the first trial all 18 people taking part (aged 13 to 35 years) were given 5 mg oral vitamin K supplement once a week or nothing for a total duration of one month and then they swapped to the other group for another month. Unfortunately, we could not analyse the data from this trial because the investigators did not report data just from the first part of the trial (only from the end of the trial when everyone taking part had been in both groups), so we could not tell if the effects were due to supplements or no supplements. In the second trial a total of 38 people aged 16 to 45 years took part. They were given either 10 mg vitamin K or placebo (a dummy supplement not containing any vitamin K) every day for 12 months, but the investigators did not state how many people were in each group so we could not analyse the results.\nIn the third trial (14 children aged 8 to 18 years old) participants were given oral vitamin K supplements, half of them at a dose of 1 mg every day and the other half were given 5 mg every day for one month."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2553 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVitamin K is necessary for the synthesis of coagulation factors. Term infants, especially those who are exclusively breast fed, are deficient in vitamin K and consequently may have vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). Preterm infants are potentially at greater risk for VKDB because of delayed feeding and subsequent delay in the colonization of their gastrointestinal system with vitamin K producing microflora, as well as immature hepatic and hemostatic function.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of vitamin K prophylaxis in the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 5 December 2016), Embase (1980 to 5 December 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 5 December 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any preparation of vitamin K given to preterm infants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe evaluated potential studies and extracted data in accordance with the recommendations of Cochrane Neonatal.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any eligible studies that compared vitamin K to no treatment.\nOne study compared intravenous (IV) to intramuscular (IM) administration of vitamin K and compared various dosages of vitamin K. Three different prophylactic regimes of vitamin K (0.5 mg IM, 0.2 mg vitamin K1, or 0.2 mg IV) were given to infants less than 32 weeks' gestation. Given that only one small study met the inclusion criteria, we assessed the quality of the evidence for the outcomes evaluated as low.\nIntramuscular versus intravenous\nThere was no statistically significant difference in vitamin K levels in the 0.2 mg IV group when compared to the infants that received either 0.2 or 0.5 mg vitamin K IM (control) on day 5. By day 25, vitamin K1 levels had declined in all of the groups, but infants who received 0.5 mg vitamin K IM had higher levels of vitamin K1 than either the 0.2 mg IV group or the 0.2 mg IM group.\nVitamin K1 2,3-epoxide (vitamin K1O) levels in the infants that received 0.2 mg IV were not statistically different from those in the control group on day 5 or 25 of the study. All of the infants had normal or supraphysiologic levels of vitamin K1 concentrations and either no detectable or insignificant amounts of prothrombin induced by vitamin K absence-II (PIVKA II).\nDosage comparisons\nDay 5 vitamin K1 levels and vitamin K1O levels were significantly lower in the 0.2 mg IM group when compared to the 0.5 mg IM group. On day 25, vitamin K1O levels and vitamin K1 levels in the 0.2 mg IM group and the 0.5 mg IM group were not significantly different. Presence of PIVKA II proteins in the 0.2 mg IM group versus the 0.5 mg IM group was not significantly different at day 5 or 25 of the study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPreterm infants have low levels of vitamin K and develop detectable PIVKA proteins during the first week of life. Despite being at risk for VKDB, there are no studies comparing vitamin K versus non-treatment and few studies that address potential dosing strategies for effective treatment. Dosage studies suggest that we are currently giving doses of vitamin K to preterm infants that lead to supraphysiologic levels. Because of current uncertainty, clinicians will have to extrapolate data from term infants to preterm infants. Since there is no available evidence that vitamin K is harmful or ineffective and since vitamin K is an inexpensive drug, it seems prudent to follow the recommendations of expert bodies and give vitamin K to preterm infants. However, further research on appropriate dose and route of administration is warranted.\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": "Low quality evidence."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2554 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors are beneficial for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for reducing the risk of joint damage, improving physical function and improving the quality of life. This review is an update of the 2014 Cochrane Review of the treatment of RA with certolizumab pegol.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical benefits and harms of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in people with RA who have not responded well to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Knowledge, reference lists of articles, clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP of WHO. The searches were updated from 2014 (date of the last search for the previous version) to 26 September 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials that compared certolizumab pegol with any other agent, including placebo or methotrexate (MTX), in adults with active RA, regardless of current or prior treatment with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as MTX.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently checked search results, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion or referral to a third review author.\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials in this update, three more than previously. Twelve trials (5422 participants) included measures of benefit. We pooled 11 of them, two more than previously. Thirteen trials included information on harms, (5273 participants). The duration of follow-up varied from 12 to 52 weeks and the range of doses of certolizumab pegol varied from 50 to 400 mg given subcutaneously. In Phase III trials, the comparator was placebo plus MTX in seven trials and placebo in five. In the two Phase II trials the comparator was only placebo.\nThe approved dose of certolizumab pegol, 200 mg every other week, produced clinically important improvements at 24 weeks for the following outcomes:\n- American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement (pain, function and other symptoms of RA): 25% absolute improvement (95% confidence interval (CI) 20% to 33%); number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 5); risk ratio (RR) 3.80 (95% CI 2.42 to 5.95), 1445 participants, 5 studies.\n- The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ): -12% absolute improvement (95% CI -9% to -14%); NNTB of 8 (95% CI 7 to 11); mean difference (MD) - 0.35 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.26; 1268 participants, 4 studies) (scale 0 to 3; lower scores mean better function).\n- Proportion of participants achieving remission (Disease Activity Score (DAS) < 2.6) absolute improvement 10% (95% CI 8% to 16%); NNTB of 8 (95% CI 6 to 12); risk ratio (RR) 2.94 (95% CI 1.64 to 5.28), 2420 participants, six studies.\n- Radiological changes: erosion score (ES) absolute improvement -0.29% (95% CI -0.42% to -0.17%); NNTB of 6 (95% CI 4 to 10); MD -0.67 (95% CI -0.96 to -0.38); 714 participants, two studies (scale 0 to 230), but not a clinically important difference.\n-Serious adverse events (SAEs) were statistically but not clinically significantly more frequent for certolizumab pegol (200 mg every other week) with an absolute rate difference of 3% (95% CI 1% to 4%); number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 33 (95% CI 25 to 100); Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.47 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.91); 3927 participants, nine studies.\nThere was a clinically significant increase in all withdrawals in the placebo groups (for all doses and at all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of -29% (95% CI -16% to -42%), NNTH of 3 (95% CI 2 to 6), RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.56); and there was a clinically significant increase in withdrawals due to adverse events in the certolizumab groups (for all doses and at all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of 2% (95% CI 0% to 3%); NNTH of 58 (95% CI 28 to 329); Peto OR 1.45 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.94) 5236 participants Twelve studies.\nWe judged the quality of evidence to be high for ACR50, DAS remission, SAEs and withdrawals due to adverse events, and moderate for HAQ and radiological changes, due to concerns about attrition bias. For all withdrawals we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate, due to inconsistency.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results and conclusions did not change from the previous review. There is a moderate to high certainty of evidence from randomised controlled trials that certolizumab pegol, alone or combined with methotrexate, is beneficial in the treatment of RA for improved ACR50 and health-related quality of life, an increased chance of remission of RA, and reduced joint damage as seen on x-ray. Fewer people stopped taking their treatment, but most of these who did stopped due to serious adverse events. Adverse events were more frequent with active treatment. We found a clinically but not statistically significant risk of serious adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Health-related quality of life\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "(Health Assessment Questionnaire, HAQ: 0 to 3 scale, where a lower score means improvement):\n- people who took certolizumab pegol scored 0.35 points lower than people who took placebo (absolute improvement 12%).\n- people on certolizumab pegol scored 0.48 points lower compared to 0.13 points lower for people who took a placebo.\nWe rate the quality of evidence for the HAQ as moderate, downgraded, due to concerns about the high number of people dropping out of the studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2555 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIleus commonly occurs after abdominal surgery, and is associated with complications and increased length of hospital stay (LOHS). Onset of ileus is considered to be multifactorial, and a variety of preventative methods have been investigated. Chewing gum (CG) is hypothesised to reduce postoperative ileus by stimulating early recovery of gastrointestinal (GI) function, through cephalo-vagal stimulation. There is no comprehensive review of this intervention in abdominal surgery.\nObjectives\nTo examine whether chewing gum after surgery hastens the return of gastrointestinal function.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO) and ISI Web of Science (June 2014). We hand-searched reference lists of identified studies and previous reviews and systematic reviews, and contacted CG companies to ask for information on any studies using their products. We identified proposed and ongoing studies from clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and metaRegister of Controlled Trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that used postoperative CG as an intervention compared to a control group.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently collected data and assessed study quality using an adapted Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We assessed overall quality of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Studies were split into subgroups: colorectal surgery (CRS), caesarean section (CS) and other surgery (OS). We assessed the effect of CG on time to first flatus (TFF), time to bowel movement (TBM), LOHS and time to bowel sounds (TBS) through meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We investigated the influence of study quality, reviewers’ methodological estimations and use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes using sensitivity analyses. We used meta-regression to explore if surgical site or ROB scores predicted the extent of the effect estimate of the intervention on continuous outcomes. We reported frequency of complications, and descriptions of tolerability of gum and cost.\nMain results\nWe identified 81 studies that comprised 9072 participants for inclusion in our review. We categorised many studies at high or unclear risk of the bias' assessed. There was statistical evidence that use of CG reduced TFF [overall reduction of 10.4 hours (95% CI: -11.9, -8.9): 12.5 hours (95% CI: -17.2, -7.8) in CRS, 7.9 hours (95% CI: –10.0, -5.8) in CS, 10.6 hours (95% CI: -12.7, -8.5) in OS]. There was also statistical evidence that use of CG reduced TBM [overall reduction of 12.7 hours (95% CI: -14.5, -10.9): 18.1 hours (95% CI: -25.3, -10.9) in CRS, 9.1 hours (95% CI: -11.4, -6.7) in CS, 12.3 hours (95% CI: -14.9, -9.7) in OS]. There was statistical evidence that use of CG slightly reduced LOHS [overall reduction of 0.7 days (95% CI: -0.8, -0.5): 1.0 days in CRS (95% CI: -1.6, -0.4), 0.2 days (95% CI: -0.3, -0.1) in CS, 0.8 days (95% CI: -1.1, -0.5) in OS]. There was statistical evidence that use of CG slightly reduced TBS [overall reduction of 5.0 hours (95% CI: -6.4, -3.7): 3.21 hours (95% CI: -7.0, 0.6) in CRS, 4.4 hours (95% CI: -5.9, -2.8) in CS, 6.3 hours (95% CI: -8.7, -3.8) in OS]. Effect sizes were largest in CRS and smallest in CS. There was statistical evidence of heterogeneity in all analyses other than TBS in CRS.\nThere was little difference in mortality, infection risk and readmission rate between the groups. Some studies reported reduced nausea and vomiting and other complications in the intervention group. CG was generally well-tolerated by participants. There was little difference in cost between the groups in the two studies reporting this outcome.\nSensitivity analyses by quality of studies and robustness of review estimates revealed no clinically important differences in effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis of ERAS studies showed a smaller effect size on TFF, larger effect size on TBM, and no difference between groups for LOHS.\nMeta-regression analyses indicated that surgical site is associated with the extent of the effect size on LOHS (all surgical subgroups), and TFF and TBM (CS and CRS subgroups only). There was no evidence that ROB score predicted the extent of the effect size on any outcome. Neither variable explained the identified heterogeneity between studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review identified some evidence for the benefit of postoperative CG in improving recovery of GI function. However, the research to date has primarily focussed on CS and CRS, and largely consisted of small, poor quality trials. Many components of the ERAS programme also target ileus, therefore the benefit of CG alongside ERAS may be reduced, as we observed in this review. Therefore larger, better quality RCTS in an ERAS setting in wider surgical disciplines would be needed to improve the evidence base for use of CG after surgery.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main Findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review found 81 relevant studies that recruited over 9000 participants in total. The studies mainly focussed on people having bowel surgery or caesarean section, but there were some studies of other surgery types. There were few studies of children. Most studies were of poor quality, which may mean their results are less reliable. We found some evidence that people who chewed gum after an operation were able to pass wind and have bowel movements sooner than people who did not chew gum. We also found some evidence that people who chewed gum after an operation had bowel sounds (gurgling sounds heard using a stethoscope held to the abdomen) slightly sooner than people who did not chew gum. There was a small difference in how long people stayed in hospital between people who did or did not chew gum. There were no differences in complications (such as infection or death) between people who did or did not chew gum. There was also no difference in the overall cost of treatment between people who did or did not chew gum."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2556 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMonoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach.\nA secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants.\nNon-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19\nFour studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision).\nBamlanivimab compared to placebo\nNo deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported.\nBamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo\nThere were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported.\nCasirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo\nCasirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported.\nSotrovimab compared to placebo\nWe are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16).\nRegdanvimab compared to placebo\nTreatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs.\nHospitalised individuals with COVID-19\nTwo studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included.\nBamlanivimab compared to placebo\nWe are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness.\nCasirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone\nTreatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.\nFurther studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.\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 one or more monoclonal antibodies to treat people with confirmed COVID-19 compared with placebo (sham treatment), another treatment or no treatment. Studies could take place anywhere globally and include participants of any age, gender or ethnicity, with mild, moderate or severe COVID-19.\nWe compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and size."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2557 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are serious conditions in which patients are predisposed to viral and bacterial infections resulting in potentially fatal acute exacerbations. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is defined as a lung disease characterised by obstruction to lung airflow that interferes with normal breathing. Antibiotic therapy has not been particularly useful in eradicating bacteria such as non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) because they are naturally occurring flora of the upper respiratory tract in many people. However, they can cause opportunistic infection. An oral NTHi vaccine has been developed to protect against recurrent infective acute exacerbations in chronic bronchitis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of an oral, whole-cell NTHi vaccine in protecting against recurrent episodes of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and COPD in adults. To assess the effectiveness of NTHi vaccine in reducing NTHi colonising the respiratory tract during recurrent episodes of acute exacerbations of COPD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2017), Embase (1974 to January 2017), CINAHL (1981 to January 2017), LILACS (1985 to January 2017), and Web of Science (1955 to January 2017). We also searched trials registries and contacted authors of trials requesting unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of an oral monobacterial NTHi vaccine in adults with recurrent acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis or COPD when there was overt matching of the vaccine and placebo groups on clinical grounds. The selection criteria considered populations aged less than 65 years and those older than 65 years.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data from original records and publications for incidence and severity of bronchitis episodes and carriage rate of NTHi measured in the upper respiratory tract, as well as data relevant to other primary and secondary outcomes.\nMain results\nWe identified six placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials with a total of 557 participants. These trials investigated the efficacy of enteric-coated, killed preparations of H influenzae in populations prone to recurrent acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis or COPD. The vaccine preparation and immunisation regimen in all trials consisted of at least three courses of formalin-killed H influenzae in enteric-coated tablets taken at intervals (e.g. days 0, 28, and 56). Each course generally consisted of two tablets taken after breakfast over three consecutive days. In all cases the placebo groups took enteric-coated tablets containing glucose. Risk of bias was moderate across the studies, namely due to the lack of information provided about methods and inadequate presentation of results.\nMeta-analysis of the oral NTHi vaccine showed a small, non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis or COPD (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.10; P = 0.16). There was no significant difference in mortality rate between the vaccine and placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.12; P = 0.31).\nWe were unable to meta-analyse the carriage levels of NTHi in participants as each trial reported this result using different units and tools of measurement. Four trials showed no significant difference in carriage levels, while two trials showed a significant decrease in carriage levels in the vaccinated group compared with the placebo group.\nFour trials assessed severity of exacerbations measured by requirement for antibiotics. Three of these trials were comparable and when meta-analysed showed a statistically significant 80% increase in antibiotic courses per person in the placebo group (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.44; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to hospital admission rates (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.04; P = 0.97). Adverse events were reported in five trials but were not necessarily related to the vaccine; a point estimate is suggestive that they occurred more frequently in the vaccine group, however this result was not statistically significant (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.92; P = 0.87). Quality of life was not meta-analysed but was reported in two trials, with results at six months showing an improvement in quality of life in the vaccinated group (scoring at least two points better than placebo).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAnalyses demonstrate that NTHi oral vaccination of people with recurrent exacerbations of chronic bronchitis or COPD does not yield a significant reduction in the number and severity of exacerbations. Evidence was mixed, and the individual trials that showed a significant benefit of the vaccine are too small to advocate widespread oral vaccination of people with COPD.\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 NTHi vaccine had no significant impact on reducing the number of acute exacerbations experienced by people with COPD. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between the vaccine and placebo groups, and the reported deaths in the vaccinated group were not attributed to the vaccine.\nThe levels of H influenzae bacteria found in the respiratory tracts of participants did not differ between the vaccine and placebo groups. Due to inconsistencies of measurement between the trials, we were not able to compare the studies against one another.\nAntibiotics, which can be an indicator of severe infection, were significantly more commonly prescribed in the placebo group. Evidence of hospital admissions showed that there was no difference in the likelihood of being hospitalised in either the vaccine or the placebo group. Two trials studying quality of life found that vaccinated participants generally had a better quality of life, but these results were measured differently and so could not be compared.\nFive trials reported adverse effects, but there was no particular association with either the vaccine or placebo group. Further research is needed to define adverse effects as outcome measures for more definitive analyses regarding vaccine side effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2558 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChildren with severe global developmental delay (SGDD) have significant intellectual disability and severe motor impairment; they are extremely limited in their functional movement and are dependent upon others for all activities of daily living. SGDD does not directly cause lung dysfunction, but the combination of immobility, weakness, skeletal deformity and parenchymal damage from aspiration can lead to significant prevalence of respiratory illness. Respiratory pathology is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality for children with SGDD; it can result in frequent hospital admissions and impacts upon quality of life. Although many treatment approaches are available, there currently exists no comprehensive review of the literature to inform best practice. A broad range of treatment options exist; to focus the scope of this review and allow in-depth analysis, we have excluded pharmaceutical interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-pharmaceutical treatment modalities for the management of respiratory morbidity in children with severe global developmental delay.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted comprehensive searches of the following databases from inception to November 2013: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We searched the Web of Science and clinical trials registries for grey literature and for planned, ongoing and unpublished trials. We checked the reference lists of all primary included studies for additional relevant references.\nWe updated searches in November 2019 and July 2020 and added six studies to awaiting classification, but these results have not been fully incorporated into the review.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, controlled trials and cohort studies of children up to 18 years of age with a diagnosis of severe neurological impairment and respiratory morbidity were included. Studies of airways clearance techniques, suction, assisted coughing, non-invasive ventilation, tracheostomy and postural management were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. As the result of heterogeneity, we could not perform meta-analysis. We have therefore presented our results using a narrative approach.\nMain results\nFifteen studies were included in the review. Studies included children with a range of severe neurological impairments in differing settings, for example, home and critical care. Several different treatment modalities were assessed, and a wide range of outcome measures were used. Most studies used a non-randomised design and included small sample groups. Only four randomised controlled trials were identified. Non-randomised design, lack of information about how participants were selected and who completed outcome measures and incomplete reporting led to high or unclear risk of bias in many studies. Results from low-quality studies suggest that use of non-invasive ventilation, mechanically assisted coughing, high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO), positive expiratory pressure and supportive seating may confer potential benefits. No serious adverse effects were reported for ventilatory support or airway clearance interventions other than one incident in a clinically unstable child following mechanically assisted coughing. Night-time positioning equipment and spinal bracing were shown to have a potentially negative effect for some participants. However, these findings must be considered as tentative and require testing in future randomised trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found no high-quality evidence for any single intervention for the management of respiratory morbidity in children with severe global developmental delay. Our search yielded data on a wide range of interventions of interest. Significant differences in study design and in outcome measures precluded the possibility of meta-analysis. No conclusions on efficacy or safety of interventions for respiratory morbidity in children with severe global developmental delay can be made based upon the findings of this review.\nA co-ordinated approach to future research is vital to ensure that high-quality evidence becomes available to guide treatment for this vulnerable patient group.\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": "For a variety of reasons, some children live with very severe intellectual and physical problems; they are unable to walk or talk and require a lot of care. In this study we refer to them as children with severe global developmental delay (SGDD); this is not a specific diagnosis but is rather an 'umbrella term' used to describe a group of children with similar problems. These children may have weak or stiff muscles and deformities of their skeleton; often they have problems with swallowing, resulting in food or saliva going into their lungs. Frequently they have a poor cough reflex and lack the strength required to expel secretions when they do cough. When we sleep, our breathing becomes shallower; for some children with SGDD whose breathing is already shallow when awake, falling asleep means that they do not breathe sufficiently deeply to take in enough oxygen and breathe out enough carbon dioxide. The consequence of these problems is that their respiratory system becomes weakened; they are more likely to develop chest infections, and relatively minor infections can make them very unwell. This can result in their spending a lot of time in hospital. This affects the quality of life for these children and families and is very expensive. Many types of treatment could help, but no good summary of studies has been prepared to tell healthcare professionals which treatments are best and when they should be used; this is the reason for this review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2559 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChinese herbal medicines have been used for a long time to treat osteoporosis. The evidence of their benefits and harms needs to be systematically reviewed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of Chinese herbal medicines as a general experimental intervention for treating primary osteoporosis by comparing herbal treatments with placebo, no intervention and conventional medicine.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases to January 2013: the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, JICST-E, AMED, Chinese Biomedical Database and CINAHL.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicines compared with placebo, no intervention or conventional medicine were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. Disagreement was resolved by discussion.\nMain results\nOne hundred and eight randomised trials involving 10,655 participants were included. Ninety-nine different Chinese herbal medicines were tested and compared with placebo (three trials), no intervention (five trials) or conventional medicine (61 trials), or Chinese herbal medicines plus western medicine were compared with western medicine (47 trials). The risk of bias across all studies was unclear for most domains primarily due to inadequate reporting of study design. Although we rated the risk of selective reporting for all studies as unclear, only a few studies contributed numerical data to the key outcomes.\nSeven trials reported fracture incidence, but they were small in sample size, suffered from various biases and tested different Chinese herbal medicines. These trials compared Kanggusong capsules versus placebo, Kanggusong granule versus Caltrate or ipriflavone plus Caltrate, Yigu capsule plus calcium versus placebo plus calcium, Xianlinggubao capsule plus Caltrate versus placebo plus Caltrate, Bushen Zhuanggu granules plus Caltrate versus placebo granules plus Caltrate, Kanggusong soup plus Caltrate versus Caltrate, Zhuangguqiangjin tablets and Shujinbogu tablets plus calcitonin ampoule versus calcitonin ampoule. The results were inconsistent.\nOne trial showed that Bushenhuoxue therapy plus calcium carbonate tablets and alfacalcidol had a better effect on quality of life score (scale 0 to 100, higher is better) than calcium carbonate tablets and alfacalcidol (mean difference (MD) 5.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.67 to 6.93).\nCompared with placebo in three separate trials, Chinese herbal medicines (Migu decoction, Bushen Yigu soft extract, Kanggusong capsules) showed a statistically significant increase in bone mineral density (BMD) (e.g. Kanggusong capsules, MD 0.06 g/cm3; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.10). Compared with no intervention in five trials, only two showed that Chinese herbal medicines had a statistically significant effect on increase in BMD (e.g. Shigu yin, MD 0.08 g/cm3; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.13). Compared with conventional medicine in 61 trials, 23 showed that Chinese herbal medicines had a statistically significant effect on increase in BMD. In 48 trials evaluating Chinese herbal medicines plus western medication against western medication, 26 showed better effects of the combination therapy on increase in BMD.\nNo trial reported death or serious adverse events of Chinese herbal medicines, while some trials reported minor adverse effects such as nausea, diarrhoea, etc.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent findings suggest that the beneficial effect of Chinese herbal medicines in improving BMD is still uncertain and more rigorous studies are warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of life\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "People who took Bushenhuoxue therapy plus calcium carbonate tablets and alfacalcidol rated their quality of life to be 5.30 points better on a scale of 0 to 100 after three months compared to people who did not take the herbal medicine.\nPeople who took Bushenhuoxue therapy plus calcium carbonate tablets and alfacalcidol rated their quality of life to be 56.05 on a scale of 0 to 100.\nPeople who took calcium carbonate tablets and alfacalcidol rated their quality of life to be 50.75 on a scale of 0 to 100."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2560 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThalassaemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from regular red blood cell transfusions. Iron chelation therapy is needed to prevent long-term complications.\nBoth deferoxamine and deferiprone are effective; however, a review of the effectiveness and safety of the newer oral chelator deferasirox in people with thalassaemia is needed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with thalassaemia and iron overload.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 12 August 2016.\nWe also searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science Core Collection and three trial registries: ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and the Internet Portal of the German Clinical Trials Register: 06 and 07 August 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled studies comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron-chelating treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nSixteen studies involving 1807 randomised participants (range 23 to 586 participants) were included. Twelve two-arm studies compared deferasirox to placebo (two studies) or deferoxamine (seven studies) or deferiprone (one study) or the combination of deferasirox and deferoxamine to deferoxamine alone (one study). One study compared the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone in combination with deferoxamine. Three three-arm studies compared deferasirox to deferoxamine and deferiprone (two studies) or the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone and deferasirox monotherapy respectively (one study). One four-arm study compared two different doses of deferasirox to matching placebo groups.\nThe two studies (a pharmacokinetic and a dose-escalation study) comparing deferasirox to placebo (n = 47) in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia showed that deferasirox leads to net iron excretion. In these studies, safety was acceptable and further investigation in phase II and phase III studies was warranted.\nNine studies (1251 participants) provided data for deferasirox versus standard treatment with deferoxamine. Data suggest that a similar efficacy can be achieved depending on the ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared. In the phase III study, similar or superior efficacy for the intermediate markers ferritin and liver iron concentration (LIC) could only be achieved in the highly iron-overloaded subgroup at a mean ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 1.8 mg of deferoxamine corresponding to a mean dose of 28.2 mg per day and 51.6 mg per day respectively. The pooled effects across the different dosing ratios are: serum ferritin, mean difference (MD) 454.42 ng/mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 337.13 to 571.71) (moderate quality evidence); LIC evaluated by biopsy or SQUID, MD 2.37 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI 1.68 to 3.07) (moderate quality evidence) and responder analysis, LIC 1 to < 7 mg Fe/g dry weight, risk ratio (RR) 0.80 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.92) (moderate quality evidence). The substantial heterogeneity observed could be explained by the different dosing ratios. Data on mortality (low quality evidence) and on safety at the presumably required doses for effective chelation therapy are limited. Patient satisfaction was better with deferasirox among those who had previously received deferoxamine treatment, RR 2.20 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.57) (moderate quality evidence). The rate of discontinuations was similar for both drugs (low quality evidence).\nFor the remaining comparisons in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia, the quality of the evidence for outcomes assessed was low to very low, mainly due to the very small number of participants included. Four studies (205 participants) compared deferasirox to deferiprone; one of which (41 participants) revealed a higher number of participants experiencing arthralgia in the deferiprone group, but due to the large number of different types of adverse events reported and compared this result is uncertain. One study (96 participants) compared deferasirox combined with deferiprone to deferiprone with deferoxamine. Participants treated with the combination of the oral iron chelators had a higher adherence compared to those treated with deferiprone and deferoxamine, but no participants discontinued the study. In the comparisons of deferasirox versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone and that of deferiprone versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone (one study, 40 participants), and deferasirox and deferoxamine versus deferoxamine alone (one study, 94 participants), only a few patient-relevant outcomes were reported and no significant differences were observed.\nOne study (166 participants) included people with non-transfusion dependent thalassaemia and compared two different doses of deferasirox to placebo. Deferasirox treatment reduced serum ferritin, MD -306.74 ng/mL (95% CI -398.23 to -215.24) (moderate quality evidence) and LIC, MD -3.27 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI -4.44 to -2.09) (moderate quality evidence), while the number of participants experiencing adverse events and rate of discontinuations (low quality evidence) was similar in both groups. No participant died, but data on mortality were limited due to a follow-up period of only one year (moderate quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDeferasirox offers an important treatment option for people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload. Based on the available data, deferasirox does not seem to be superior to deferoxamine at the usually recommended ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 2 mg of deferoxamine. However, similar efficacy seems to be achievable depending on the dose and ratio of deferasirox compared to deferoxamine. Whether this will result in similar efficacy and will translate to similar benefits in the long term, as has been shown for deferoxamine, needs to be confirmed. Data from randomised controlled trials on rare toxicities and long-term safety are still limited. However, after a detailed discussion of the potential benefits and risks, deferasirox could be offered as the first-line option to individuals who show a strong preference for deferasirox, and may be a reasonable treatment option for people showing an intolerance or poor adherence to deferoxamine.\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": "Thalassaemia is a hereditary anaemia due to a defect in the production of haemoglobin. Regular red blood cell transfusions are needed, particularly for the severe form of the disease, thalassaemia major. This results in iron overload. Since the human body has no means of actively getting rid of excessive iron, drug treatment (iron-chelating drugs) is needed. Several years ago, a newer oral iron chelator, deferasirox, was introduced."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2561 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHealth insurance has the potential to improve access to health care and protect people from the financial risks of diseases. However, health insurance coverage is often low, particularly for people most in need of protection, including children and other vulnerable populations.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of strategies for expanding health insurance coverage in vulnerable populations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com (searched 2 November 2012), PubMed (searched 1 November 2012), EMBASE (searched 6 July 2012), Global Health (searched 6 July 2012), IBSS (searched 6 July 2012), WHO Library Database (WHOLIS) (searched 1 November 2012), IDEAS (searched 1 November 2012), ISI-Proceedings (searched 1 November 2012),OpenGrey (changed from OpenSIGLE) (searched 1 November 2012), African Index Medicus (searched 1 November 2012), BLDS (searched 1 November 2012), Econlit (searched 1 November 2012), ELDIS (searched 1 November 2012), ERIC (searched 1 November 2012), HERDIN NeON Database (searched 1 November 2012), IndMED (searched 1 November 2012), JSTOR (searched 1 November 2012), LILACS(searched 1 November 2012), NTIS (searched 1 November 2012), PAIS (searched 6 July 2012), Popline (searched 1 November 2012), ProQuest Dissertation &Theses Database (searched 1 November 2012), PsycINFO (searched 6 July 2012), SSRN (searched 1 November 2012), Thai Index Medicus (searched 1 November 2012), World Bank (searched 2 November 2012), WanFang (searched 3 November 2012), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CHKD-CNKI) (searched 2 November 2012).\nIn addition, we searched the reference lists of included studies and carried out a citation search for the included studies via Web of Science to find other potentially relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and Interrupted time series (ITS) studies that evaluated the effects of strategies on increasing health insurance coverage for vulnerable populations. We defined strategies as measures to improve the enrolment of vulnerable populations into health insurance schemes. Two categories and six specified strategies were identified as the interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We undertook a structured synthesis.\nMain results\nWe included two studies, both from the United States. People offered health insurance information and application support by community-based case managers were probably more likely to enrol their children into health insurance programmes (risk ratio (RR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44 to 1.96, moderate quality evidence) and were probably more likely to continue insuring their children (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.95 to 3.44, moderate quality evidence). Of all the children that were insured, those in the intervention group may have been insured quicker (47.3 fewer days, 95% CI 20.6 to 74.0 fewer days, low quality evidence) and parents may have been more satisfied on average (satisfaction score average difference 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42, low quality evidence).\nIn the second study applications were handed out in emergency departments at hospitals, compared to not handing out applications, and may have had an effect on enrolment (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.18, low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCommunity-based case managers who provide health insurance information, application support, and negotiate with the insurer probably increase enrolment of children in health insurance schemes. However, the transferability of this intervention to other populations or other settings is uncertain. Handing out insurance application materials in hospital emergency departments may help increase the enrolment of children in health insurance schemes. Further studies evaluating the effectiveness of different strategies for expanding health insurance coverage in vulnerable population are needed in different settings, with careful attention given to study design.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"People who are given insurance application forms in the emergency departments of hospitals\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- may be more likely to enrol their children into health insurance programmes (low quality evidence).\nNo unwanted effects were reported in the studies. A possible unwanted effect might be that people could experience the information and support as annoying or unhelpful. However, in the one study that measured the parents’ satisfaction, people were more satisfied when given information and support."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2562 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFollowing middle ear ventilation tube (tympanostomy tube or grommet) insertion, most surgeons advise that a child's ears should be kept dry during the immediate postoperative period. Following the initial period some surgeons will permit swimming or bathing, whereas other surgeons will recommend ongoing water precautions. A large number of studies have been conducted to explore the association between water exposure and ear infections in children with ventilation tubes, however a range of differing conclusions exist regarding the need for water precautions and there is wide variation in clinical practice.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of water precautions for the prevention of ear infections in children with ventilation tubes (grommets), at any time while the tubes are in place.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 8); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Clinicaltrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials recruiting children (0 to 17 years) with ventilation tubes and assessing the effect of water precautions while the tubes are in place. We considered all forms of water precautions, including behavioural (i.e. avoidance or swimming/bathing restrictions) and mechanical (ear plugs/moulds or hats/bands).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome measures were episodes of otorrhoea and adverse effects; secondary outcomes were antimicrobial prescriptions for ear infections, ventilation tube extrusion, surgical intervention to remove ventilation tubes and hearing outcomes.\nMain results\nTwo randomised controlled trials recruiting a total of 413 patients met the criteria for inclusion in our review; one study had a low risk of bias and the other study had a high risk of bias.\nEar plugs versus control\nOne study recruited 201 children (aged six months to six years) who underwent myringotomy and ventilation tube insertion. The study compared an intervention group who were instructed to swim and bathe with ear plugs with a control group; the participants were followed up at one-month intervals for one year. This study, with low risk of bias, showed that the use of ear plugs results in a small but statistically significant reduction in the rate of otorrhoea from 1.2 episodes to 0.84 episodes in the year of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.36 episodes per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to -0.27). There was no significant difference in ventilation tube extrusion or hearing outcomes between the two study arms. No child required surgical intervention to remove ventilation tubes and no adverse events were reported.\nWater avoidance versus control\nAnother study recruited 212 children (aged three months to 12 years) who underwent myringotomy and ventilation tube insertion. The study compared an intervention group who were instructed not to swim or submerge their heads while bathing with a control group; the participants were followed up at three-month intervals for one year. This study, with high risk of bias, did not show any evidence of a reduction or increase in the rate of otorrhoea (1.17 episodes per year in both groups; MD 0 episodes, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.14). No other outcomes were reported for this study and no adverse events were reported.\nQuality of evidence\nThe overall quality (GRADE) of the body of evidence for the effect of ear plugs on the rate of otorrhoea and the effect of water avoidance on the rate of otorrhoea are low and very low respectively.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe baseline rate of ventilation tube otorrhoea and the morbidity associated with it is usually low and therefore careful prior consideration must be given to the efficacy, costs and burdens of any intervention aimed at reducing this rate.\nWhile there is some evidence to suggest that wearing ear plugs reduces the rate of otorrhoea in children with ventilation tubes, clinicians and parents should understand that the absolute reduction in the number of episodes of otorrhoea appears to be very small and is unlikely to be clinically significant. Based on the data available, an average child would have to wear ear plugs for 2.8 years to prevent one episode of otorrhoea.\nSome evidence suggests that advising children to avoid swimming or head immersion during bathing does not affect rates of otorrhoea, although good quality data are lacking in this area. Currently, consensus guidelines therefore recommend against the routine use of water precautions on the basis that the limited clinical benefit is outweighed by the associated cost, inconvenience and anxiety.\nFuture high-quality studies could be undertaken but may not be thought necessary. It is uncertain whether further trials in this area would change the findings of this review or have an impact on practice. Any future high-quality research should focus on determining whether particular groups of children benefit more from water precautions than others, as well as on developing clinical guidelines and their implementation.\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": "Ventilation tubes are used to treat hearing loss due to glue ear, or to treat recurrent ear infections. Most surgeons agree that children's ears should be kept dry for a few weeks after the operation, but not all agree on whether ears need to be kept dry thereafter. Some surgeons will allow children to swim and bathe without ear protection, whereas others will recommend ears be kept dry while tubes are in place."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2563 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTrabeculectomy is a surgical treatment for glaucoma to lower intraocular pressure with high success rates; however, it is often associated with an increased rate of cataract formation. Cataract can cause symptoms such as glare in bright conditions, foggy vision, and difficulty in driving at night. Cataract extraction surgery is highly successful in improving vision, but it comes at a cost of trabeculectomy failure, with a reported risk of 30% to 40%. An additional intervention to promote trabeculectomy survival after cataract extraction is needed. This review encompassed all adjunctive therapies used at the time of cataract surgery to increase trabeculectomy survival rate.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effect of the adjunctive modulation of wound healing during cataract surgery on the survival of a previously functioning trabeculectomy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 14 April 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants who had a functioning trabeculectomy and were undergoing cataract surgery that compared any adjunctive therapy intended to modulate wound healing (such as 5-fluorouracil, mitomycin C, or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy) with no adjuvant therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was trabeculectomy failure at 6 months and 12 months after cataract surgery. Secondary outcomes were mean intraocular pressure difference from pre-cataract surgery baseline to 6 to 18 months post-cataract surgery; number of medications required to control eye pressure compared to before cataract surgery; bleb appearance as measured by a summation score of the Moorfields bleb grading system or other equivalent numerical grading systems; visual field progression measured by difference in mean deviation from baseline; and any complications.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any RCTs of adjunctive modulation of wound healing during cataract surgery to promote survival of a previous trabeculectomy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a need for an RCT to investigate the role of adjuvant wound modulating therapy at the time of cataract surgery to promote survival of a functioning trabeculectomy.\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": "We do not know whether an additional medical treatment during cataract surgery improves the chances of the drainage hole remaining open, as there is no evidence at present. It would be helpful if more studies were conducted in this area in future."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2564 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEndocrine therapy is effective at preventing or treating breast cancer. Some forms of endocrine therapy have been shown to reduce mammographic density. Reduced mammographic density for women receiving endocrine therapy could be used to estimate the chance of breast cancer returning or developing breast cancer in the first instance (a prognostic biomarker). In addition, changes in mammographic density might be able to predict how well a woman responds to endocrine therapy (a predictive biomarker). The role of breast density as a prognostic or predictive biomarker could help improve the management of breast cancer.\nObjectives\nTo assess the evidence that a reduction in mammographic density following endocrine therapy for breast cancer prevention in women without previous breast cancer, or for treatment in women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, is a prognostic or predictive biomarker.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 3 August 2020 along with reference checking, bibliographic searching, and contact with study authors to obtain further data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, cohort and case-control studies of adult women with or without breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy. Endocrine therapy agents included were selective oestrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors. We required breast density before start of endocrine therapy and at follow-up. We included studies published in English.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using adapted Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. We did not perform a quantitative meta-analysis due to substantial heterogeneity across studies.\nMain results\nEight studies met our inclusion criteria, of which seven provided data on outcomes listed in the protocol (5786 women). There was substantial heterogeneity across studies in design, sample size (349 to 1066 women), participant characteristics, follow-up (5 to 14 years), and endocrine therapy agent. There were five breast density measures and six density change definitions. All studies had at least one domain as at moderate or high risk of bias. Common concerns were whether the study sample reflected the review target population, and likely post hoc definitions of breast density change.\nMost studies on prognosis for women receiving endocrine therapy reported a reduced risk associated with breast density reduction. Across endpoints, settings, and agents, risk ratio point estimates (most likely value) were between 0.1 and 1.5, but with substantial uncertainty. There was greatest consistency in the direction and magnitude of the effect for tamoxifen (across endpoints and settings, risk ratio point estimates were between 0.3 and 0.7). The findings are summarised as follows.\nPrognostic biomarker findings:\nTreatment\nBreast cancer mortality\nTwo studies of 823 women on tamoxifen (172 breast cancer deaths) reported risk ratio point estimates of ~0.4 and ~0.5 associated with a density reduction. The certainty of the evidence was low.\nRecurrence\nTwo studies of 1956 women on tamoxifen reported risk ratio point estimates of ~0.4 and ~0.7 associated with a density reduction. There was risk of bias in methodology for design and analysis of the studies and considerable uncertainty over the size of the effect.\nOne study of 175 women receiving an aromatase inhibitor reported a risk ratio point estimate of ~0.1 associated with a density reduction. There was considerable uncertainty about the effect size and a moderate or high risk of bias in all domains.\nOne study of 284 women receiving exemestane or tamoxifen as part of a randomised controlled trial reported risk ratio point estimates of ~1.5 (loco-regional recurrence) and ~1.3 (distance recurrence) associated with a density reduction. There was risk of bias in reporting and study confounding, and uncertainty over the size of the effects.\nThe certainty of the evidence for all recurrence endpoints was very low.\nIncidence of a secondary primary breast cancer\nTwo studies of 451 women on exemestane, tamoxifen, or unknown endocrine therapy reported risk ratio point estimates of ~0.5 and ~0.6 associated with a density reduction. There was risk of bias in reporting and study confounding, and uncertainty over the effect size. The certainty of the evidence was very low.\nWe were unable to find data regarding the remaining nine outcomes prespecified in the review protocol.\nPrevention\nIncidence of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)\nOne study of 507 women without breast cancer who were receiving preventive tamoxifen as part of a randomised controlled trial (51 subsequent breast cancers) reported a risk ratio point estimate of ~0.3 associated with a density reduction. The certainty of the evidence was low.\nPredictive biomarker findings:\nOne study of a subset of 1065 women from a randomised controlled trial assessed how much the effect of endocrine therapy could be explained by breast density declines in those receiving endocrine therapy. This study evaluated the prevention of invasive breast cancer and DCIS. We found some evidence to support the hypothesis, with a risk ratio interaction point estimate ~0.5. However, the 95% confidence interval included unity, and data were based on 51 women with subsequent breast cancer in the tamoxifen group. The certainty of the evidence was low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-/very low-certainty evidence to support the hypothesis that breast density change following endocrine therapy is a prognostic biomarker for treatment or prevention. Studies suggested a potentially large effect size with tamoxifen, but the evidence was limited. There was less evidence that breast density change following tamoxifen preventive therapy is a predictive biomarker than prognostic biomarker. Evidence for breast density change as a prognostic treatment biomarker was stronger for tamoxifen than aromatase inhibitors. There were no studies reporting mammographic density change following endocrine therapy as a predictive biomarker in the treatment setting, nor aromatase inhibitor therapy as a prognostic or predictive biomarker in the preventive setting. Further research is warranted to assess mammographic density as a biomarker for all classes of endocrine therapy and review endpoints.\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 performed the search on 3 August 2020. We included studies of adult women with breast cancer if the women's breast cancer had been diagnosed at an early stage and could be treated with endocrine therapy (hormone receptor-positive breast cancer). We included drugs often used in practice (tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors). We found a wide variety of studies. The studies varied in terms of how they had been planned and the characteristics of the women included in the studies, as well as in how breast density change was measured."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2565 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertension is considered to be a serious health problem worldwide. Controlling and lowering blood pressure are of significant benefit to people with hypertension because hypertension is a risk factor for stroke, heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. Roselle, the tropical plant Hibiscus sabdariffa, also commonly called sour tea or red tea, has been used as both a thirst-quenching drink and for medicinal purposes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of Roselle on blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases and trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (to 6 August 2021), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 August 2021), Embase Ovid (1974 to 5 August 2021), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (to 6 August 2021), Web of Science Clarivate (to 7 August 2021), Food Science and Technology Abstracts Clarivate (to 7 August 2021), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 6 August 2021), and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (to 6 August 2021). We searched Google Scholar and OpenSIGLE. We also handsearched local and regional Chinese databases: CBM, CMCC, TCMLARS, CNKI, CMAC, and the Index to Chinese Periodical Literature (to 14 September 2020), as well as Thai databases (ThaiJO, CUIR, TDC, CMU e-Theses, TCTR) (to 3 October 2020). There were no language or publication date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought RCTs evaluating the use of any forms of Roselle with placebo or no treatment in adults with hypertension. Our primary outcome was change in trough and/or peak systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP). Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to adverse effects, change in pulse pressure, and change in heart rate.\nData collection and analysis\nAll search results were managed using Covidence and re-checked for the number of records, inclusion and exclusion of studies with Mendeley reference management software. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors worked independently in parallel for screening (titles and abstracts, and full reports), data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and assessment of the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consultation with the third review author if necessary. We presented mean difference (MD) of change in SBP and DBP with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).\nMain results\nFor this update, only one RCT with a parallel-group design involving 60 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus fulfilled the inclusion criteria. This study investigated the effect of Roselle extract capsules (total dose of 5600 mg) compared with placebo (lactose) at eight weeks. The study was at low risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias. Conversely, it was at high risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias (baseline imbalance).\nWe have very little confidence in the effect estimate of Roselle on change-from-baseline in both SBP and DBP between the two groups. The MD of change in SBP was 1.65, 95% CI −7.89 to 11.19 mmHg, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence. The MD of change in DBP was 4.60, 95% CI −1.38 to 10.58 mmHg, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence. Our secondary outcomes of withdrawals due to adverse effects, change in pulse pressure, and change in heart rate were not reported. Due to the limited available data, no secondary analyses were performed (subgroup and sensitivity analysis).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is currently insufficient to determine the effectiveness of Roselle compared to placebo for controlling or lowering blood pressure in people with hypertension. The certainty of evidence was very low due to methodological limitations, imprecision, and indirectness. There is a need for rigorous RCTs that address the review question.\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": "We found only one trial which included a small number of participants, all of whom had diabetes. More studies with various types of participants and different ways of taking Roselle (forms, amounts, and time of day, length of use) are needed."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2566 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe optimal therapy for preventing recurrent stroke in people with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale (PFO) has not been defined. The choice between medical therapy (antithrombotic treatment with antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants) and transcatheter device closure has been the subject of intense debate over the past several years. Despite the lack of scientific evidence, a substantial number of people undergo transcatheter device closure (TDC) for secondary stroke prevention.\nObjectives\nTo: 1) compare the safety and efficacy of TDC with best medical therapy alone for preventing recurrent stroke (fatal or non-fatal) or transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) in people with PFO and a history of cryptogenic stroke or TIA; 2) identify specific subgroups of people most likely to benefit from closure for secondary prevention; and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, if possible.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (July 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2014), MEDLINE (1950 to July 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2014). In an effort to identify unpublished and ongoing trials we searched seven trials registers and checked reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding, publication status, and language, comparing the safety and efficacy of device closure with medical therapy for preventing recurrent stroke or TIA in people with PFO and a history of cryptogenic stroke or TIA.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcome measures of this analysis were the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke or TIA events as well as recurrent fatal or non-fatal ischemic stroke. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, bleeding) and procedural success and effective closure. We used the Mantel-Haenszel method to obtain pooled risk ratios (RRs) using the random-effects model regardless of the level of heterogeneity. We pooled data for the primary outcome measure with the generic inverse variance method using the random-effects model, yielding risk estimates as pooled hazard ratio (HR), which accounts for time-to-event outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs involving a total of 2303 participants: 1150 participants were randomized to receive TDC and 1153 participants were randomized to receive medical therapy. Overall, the risk of bias was regarded as high. The mean follow-up period of all three included trials was less than five years. Baseline characteristics (age, sex, and vascular risk factors) were similar across trials. Intention-to-treat analyses did not show a statistically significant risk reduction in the composite endpoint of recurrent stroke or TIA in the TDC group when compared with medical therapy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.17). A time-to-event analysis combining the results of two RCTs also failed to show a significant risk reduction with TDC (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13). When assessing stroke prevention alone, TDC still did not show a statistically significant benefit (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.27) (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.18). In a sensitivity analysis including the two studies using the Amplatzer PFO occluder, TDC showed a possible protective effect on recurrent stroke compared with medical therapy (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.02); however, it did not reach statistical significance. Safety analysis found that the overall risks for all-cause mortality and adverse events were similar in both the TDC and medical therapy groups. However, TDC increased the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.47 to 8.35) and may be associated with the type of device used.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe combined data from recent RCTs have shown no statistically significant differences between TDC and medical therapy in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke. TDC closure was associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation but not with serious adverse events.\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": "Some people who have had a stroke of no known cause (cryptogenic stroke) are found to have a PFO, which is a hole between the upper chambers of the heart. It is believed that the existence of a PFO may cause further strokes or similar events so it is important to close the PFO to prevent this from happening. It is not clear whether using TDC (by placing a device over the hole in the heart via a tube that is inserted through a vein in the groin) is superior to medical therapy for preventing recurrent stroke or other similar events."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2567 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAutism spectrum disorder (ASD) has an estimated prevalence of around 1.7% of the population. People with ASD often also have language difficulties, and about 25% to 30% of children with ASD either fail to develop functional language or are minimally verbal. The ability to communicate effectively is an essential life skill, and difficulties with communication can have a range of adverse outcomes, including poorer academic achievement, behavioural difficulties and reduced quality of life. Historically, most studies have investigated communication interventions for ASD in verbal children. We cannot assume the same interventions will work for minimally verbal children with ASD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of communication interventions for ASD in minimally verbal children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase as well as 12 other databases and three trials registers in November 2017. We also checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant reviews, contacting experts in the field as well as authors of identified studies about other potentially relevant ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of communication-focused interventions for children (under 12 years of age) diagnosed with ASD and who are minimally verbal (fewer than 30 functional words or unable to use speech alone to communicate), compared with no treatment, wait-list control or treatment as usual.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nThis review includes two RCTs (154 children aged 32 months to 11 years) of communication interventions for ASD in minimally verbal children compared with a control group (treatment as usual). One RCT used a verbally based intervention (focused playtime intervention; FPI) administered by parents in the home, whereas the other used an alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) intervention (Picture Exchange Communication System; PECS) administered by teachers in a school setting.\nThe FPI study took place in the USA and included 70 participants (64 boys) aged 32 to 82 months who were minimally verbal and had received a diagnosis of ASD. This intervention focused on developing coordinated toy play between child and parent. Participants received 12 in-home parent training sessions for 90 minutes per session for 12 weeks, and they were also invited to attend parent advocacy coaching sessions. This study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the MIND Institute Research Program and a Professional Staff Congress-City University of New York grant. The PECS study included 84 minimally verbal participants (73 boys) aged 4 to 11 years who had a formal diagnosis of ASD and who were not using PECS beyond phase 1 at baseline. All children attended autism-specific classes or units, and most classes had a child to adult ratio of 2:1. Teachers and parents received PECS training (two-day workshop). PECS consultants also conducted six half-day consultations with each class once per month over five months. This study took place in the UK and was funded by the Three Guineas Trust.\nBoth included studies had high or unclear risk of bias in at least four of the seven 'Risk of bias' categories, with a lack of blinding for participants and personnel being the most problematic area. Using the GRADE approach, we rated the overall quality of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias, imprecision (small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals) and because there was only one trial identified per type of intervention (i.e. verbally based or AAC).\nBoth studies focused primarily on communication outcomes (verbal and non-verbal). One of the studies also collected information on social communication. The FPI study found no significant improvement in spoken communication, measured using the expressive language domain of the Mullen Scale of Early Learning expressive language, at postintervention. However, this study found that children with lower expressive language at baseline (less than 11.3 months age-equivalent) improved more than children with better expressive language and that the intervention produced expressive language gains in some children. The PECS study found that children enrolled in the AAC intervention were significantly more likely to use verbal initiations and PECS symbols immediately postintervention; however, gains were not maintained 10 months later. There was no evidence that AAC improved frequency of speech, verbal expressive vocabulary or children's social communication or pragmatic language immediately postintervention. Overall, neither of the interventions (PECS or FPI) resulted in maintained improvements in spoken or non-verbal communication in most children.\nNeither study collected information on adverse events, other communication skills, quality of life or behavioural outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence that verbally based and ACC interventions improve spoken and non-verbal communication in minimally verbal children with ASD. A substantial number of studies have investigated communication interventions for minimally verbal children with ASD, yet only two studies met inclusion criteria for this review, and we considered the overall quality of the evidence to be very low. In the study that used an AAC intervention, there were significant gains in frequency of PECS use and verbal and non-verbal initiations, but not in expressive vocabulary or social communication immediately postintervention. In the study that investigated a verbally based intervention, there were no significant gains in expressive language postintervention, but children with lower expressive language at the beginning of the study improved more than those with better expressive language at baseline. Neither study investigated adverse events, other communication skills, quality of life or behavioural outcomes. Future RCTs that compare two interventions and include a control group will allow us to better understand treatment effects in the context of spontaneous maturation and will allow further comparison of different interventions as well as the investigation of moderating factors.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we look at?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched 18 databases and trials registers in November 2016 and updated the search in November 2017."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2568 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nYoga is an ancient spiritual practice that originated in India and is currently accepted in the Western world as a form of relaxation and exercise. It has been of interest for people with schizophrenia as an alternative or adjunctive treatment.\nObjectives\nTo systematically assess the effects of yoga versus non-standard care for people with schizophrenia.\nSearch methods\nThe Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group searched their specialised Trials Register (latest 30 March 2017), which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We searched the references of all included studies. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with schizophrenia and comparing yoga with non-standard care. We included trials that met our selection criteria and reported useable data.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review team independently selected studies, assessed quality, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect models for analyses. We examined data for heterogeneity (I2 technique), assessed risk of bias for included studies, and created a 'Summary of findings’ table for seven main outcomes of interest using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).\nMain results\nWe were able to include six studies (586 participants). Non-standard care consisted solely of another type of exercise programme. All outcomes were short term (less than six months). There was a clear difference in the outcome leaving the study early (6 RCTs, n=586, RR 0.64 CI 0.49 to 0.83, medium quality evidence) in favour of the yoga group. There were no clear differences between groups for the remaining outcomes. These included mental state (improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, 1 RCT, n=84, RR 0.81 CI 0.62 to 1.07, low quality evidence), social functioning (improvement in Social Occupational Functioning Scale, 1 RCT, n=84, RR 0.90 CI 0.78 to 1.04, low quality evidence), quality of life (mental health) (average change 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) quality-of-life sub-scale, 1 RCT, n=69, MD -5.30 CI -17.78 to 7.18, low quality evidence), physical health, (average change WHOQOL-BREF physical-health sub-scale, 1 RCT, n=69, MD 9.22 CI -0.42 to 18.86, low quality evidence). Only one study reported adverse effects, finding no incidence of adverse events in either treatment group. There were a considerable number of missing outcomes, which included relapse, change in cognition, costs of care, effect on standard care, service intervention, disability, and activities of daily living.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found minimal differences between yoga and non-standard care, the latter consisting of another exercise comparator, which could be broadly considered aerobic exercise. Outcomes were largely based on single studies with limited sample sizes and short-term follow-up. Overall, many outcomes were not reported and evidence presented in this review is of low to moderate quality - too weak to indicate that yoga is superior or inferior to non-standard care control for management of people with schizophrenia.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Searching for evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We ran electronic searches for trials (latest search was in March 2017) for trials that randomised people with schizophrenia to receive yoga or another add-on treatment. One thousand and thirty four records were found and checked by the review authors."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2569 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite optimal therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, many people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) continue to have persistent pain that may require additional therapy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and safety of combination pain therapy for people with IA (rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and other spondyloarthritis (SpA)). We planned to assess differences in effects between patients on background disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy and patients on no background therapy in subgroup analyses.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE; and EMBASE. We did not impose any date or language restrictions in the search. We also handsearched conference proceedings of the American College of Rheumatology and the European League against Rheumatism (2008-10).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) assessing combination therapy (at least two drugs from the following classes: analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, opioid-like drugs and neuromodulators (antidepressants, anticonvulsants and muscle relaxants)) compared with monotherapy, for adults with IA (RA, AS, PsA and other SpA). We speficically excluded studies that did not report pain or studies without a standardised pain scale as an outcome measure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.\nMain results\nTwenty-three trials (total of 912 patients) met the inclusion criteria (22 in RA; one in a mixed population of RA and osteoarthritis); all except one were published before 1990. Most study populations were not taking DMARDs (e.g. methotrexate, sulphasalazine, hydroxychloroquine and leflunomide) and all studies were performed prior to the introduction of biologic therapies (e.g. etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab). All trials were at high risk of bias, heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and we were only able to report a general description of results.\nThe majority (18 studies, 78%) found no differences between the combination and monotherapy treatments they studied, while five (22%) reported conflicting results, favouring either the combination or monotherapy arms.\nFrom the 12 trials on NSAID + analgesic vs NSAID, nine reported no significant difference between the interventions, while three did: in two, the combination therapy achieved better pain control; and the third trial compared combination therapy with two different dosages of monotherapy (NSAID alone) and reported that a high dose phenylbutazone was superior to combination therapy (paracetamol + aspirin), which was superior to low dose phenylbutazone.\nFrom the five studies on the combination of two NSAIDS vs one NSAID, four reported no significant differences between interventions, and one reported significantly better pain control with combination therapy.\nThe single trial comparing a combination of opioid + neuromodulator vs opioid reported better pain control with monotherapy.\nThe remaining trials (NSAID + neuromodulator vs NSAID (3 trials); opioid + NSAID vs NSAID (1 trial); and opioid + analgesic vs analgesic (1 trial)) found no significant difference between combination therapy and monotherapy.\nInformation regarding withdrawals due to inadequate analgesia and safety was incompletely reported, but in general there were no differences between combination therapy and monotherapy.\nNo data were available that addressed the value of combination pain therapy or monotherapy for people with IA who have optimal disease suppression. There were no studies that included patients with AS, PsA or SpA.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on 23 trials, all at high risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to establish the value of combination therapy over monotherapy for people with IA. Importantly, there are no studies addressing the value of combination therapy for patients with IA who have persistent pain despite optimal disease suppression. Well designed trials are needed to address this question.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Best estimate of what happens to people with IA who take combination therapy for pain\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is insufficient evidence to establish the value of combination therapy over monotherapy for people with IA. We included 23 studies in this review, all at high risk of bias (i.e. high chance of giving invalid results). Twenty-two of the trials were in patients with RA and one in a mixed population (RA and osteoarthritis). There were no studies in patients with AS, PsA or SpA. Included studies were old (all but one were published before 1990) and patients were, in general, not on optimal disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, as is standard current practice. Therefore, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the value of combination pain therapy over monotherapy for people with IA. Importantly, there are no studies addressing the value of combination therapy for patients with IA who have persistent pain despite optimal disease suppression. Well designed studies are needed to address this question."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2570 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPolicy makers, health staff and communities recognise that health services in lower- and middle-income countries need to improve people's access to HIV treatment and retention to treatment programmes. One strategy is to move antiretroviral delivery from hospitals to more peripheral health facilities or even beyond health facilities. This could increase the number of people with access to care, improve health outcomes, and enhance retention in treatment programmes. On the other hand, providing care at less sophisticated levels in the health service or at community-level may decrease quality of care and result in worse health outcomes. To address these uncertainties, we summarised the research studies examining the risks and benefits of decentralising antiretroviral therapy service delivery.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of various models that decentralised HIV treatment and care to more basic levels in the health system for initiating and maintaining antiretroviral therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a comprehensive search to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress) from 1 January 1996 to 31 March 2013, and contacted relevant organisations and researchers. The search terms included 'decentralisation', 'down referral', 'delivery of health care', and 'health services accessibility'.\nSelection criteria\nOur inclusion criteria were controlled trials (randomised and non-randomised), controlled-before and after studies, and cohorts (prospective and retrospective) in which HIV-infected people were either initiated on antiretroviral therapy or maintained on therapy in a decentralised setting in lower- and middle-income countries. We define decentralisation as providing treatment at a more basic level in the health system to the comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors applied the inclusion criteria and extracted data independently. We designed a framework to describe different decentralisation strategies, and then grouped studies against these strategies. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Because loss to follow up in HIV programmes is known to include some deaths, we used attrition as our primary outcome, defined as death plus loss to follow-up. We assessed evidence quality with GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, all but one were from Africa, comprising two cluster randomised trials and 14 cohort studies. Antiretroviral therapy started at a hospital and maintained at a health centre (partial decentralisation) probably reduces attrition (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.71, 4 studies, 39 090 patients, moderate quality evidence). There may be fewer patients lost to care with this model (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.69, low quality evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether there is a difference in attrition for antiretroviral therapy started and maintained at a health centre (full decentralisation) compared to a hospital at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.02; four studies, 56 360 patients, very low quality evidence), but there are probably fewer patients lost to care with this model (RR 0.3, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54, moderate quality evidence).\nWhen antiretroviral maintenance therapy is delivered at home by trained volunteers, there is probably no difference in attrition at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.46, two trials, 1453 patients, moderate quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDecentralisation of HIV care aims to improve patient access and retention in care. Most data were from good quality cohort studies but confounding between site of treatment and outcomes cannot be excluded. Nevertheless, this review found that attrition appears to be lower in partial decentralisation models of treatment, where antiretrovirals were started at hospital and continued in the health centre; with antiretroviral drugs started and continued at health centres, no difference in attrition was detected, but there were fewer patients lost to care. For antiretroviral therapy provided at home by trained volunteers, no difference in outcomes were detected when compared to facility-based care.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Many people living with HIV who need antiretroviral therapy are unable to access or remain in care. This is often because of the time and cost required to travel to health centres. One approach to facilitating access and retention in care is to provide antiretroviral therapy close to people’s homes, ‘decentralising’ treatment from hospitals to health centres or even to the community. We wanted to assess whether decentralisation of antiretroviral therapy reduced the number of people lost to follow-up. Because loss to follow-up in HIV programmes is known to include some people who have died, our main outcome of interest was 'attrition', which is the number of people who have either died or been lost to follow-up."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2571 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVertigo is a symptom in which individuals experience a false sensation of movement. This type of dizziness is thought to originate in the inner ear labyrinth or its neural connections. It is a commonly experienced symptom and can cause significant problems with carrying out normal activities. Betahistine is a drug that may work by improving blood flow to the inner ear. This review examines whether betahistine is more effective than a placebo at treating symptoms of vertigo from different causes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of betahistine in patients with symptoms of vertigo from different causes.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 8); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. The date of the search was 21 September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of betahistine versus placebo in patients of any age with vertigo from any neurotological diagnosis in any settings.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with reduction in vertigo symptoms (considering together the intensity, frequency and duration those symptoms).\nMain results\nWe included 17 studies, with a total of 1025 participants; 12 studies were published (567 patients) and five were unpublished (458 patients). Sixteen studies including 953 people compared betahistine with placebo. All studies with analysable data lasted three months or less. The majority were at high risk of bias, but in some the risk of bias was unclear. One study, at high risk of bias, included 72 people with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and compared betahistine with placebo; all patients also had particle repositioning manoeuvres. The studies varied considerably in terms of types of participants, their diagnoses, the dose of betahistine and the length of time it was taken for, the study methods and the way any improvement in vertigo symptoms was measured. Using the GRADE system, we judged the quality of evidence overall to be low for two outcomes (proportion of patients with improvement and proportion with adverse events).\nPooled data showed that the proportion of patients reporting an overall reduction in their vertigo symptoms was higher in the group treated with betahistine than the placebo group: risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.60; 606 participants; 11 studies). This result should be interpreted with caution as the test for statistical heterogeneity as measured by the I2 value was high.\nAdverse effects (mostly gastrointestinal symptoms and headache) were common but medically serious events in the study were rare and isolated: there was no difference in the frequency of adverse effects between the betahistine and placebo groups, where the rates were 16% and 15% respectively (weighted values, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.40; 819 participants; 12 studies).\nSixteen per cent of patients from both the betahistine and the placebo groups withdrew (dropped out) from the studies (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.42; 481 participants; eight studies).\nThree studies looked at objective vestibular function tests as an outcome; the numbers of participants were small, techniques of measurement very diverse and reporting details sparse, so analysis of this outcome was inconclusive.\nWe looked for information on generic quality of life and falls, but none of the studies reported on these outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow quality evidence suggests that in patients suffering from vertigo from different causes there may be a positive effect of betahistine in terms of reduction in vertigo symptoms. Betahistine is generally well tolerated with a low risk of adverse events. Future research into the management of vertigo symptoms needs to use more rigorous methodology and include outcomes that matter to patients and their families.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "When all studies are taken together, the proportion of patients reporting a reduction of their vertigo symptoms was significantly higher in the betahistine group than in the placebo group. However, there was significant variability in the results of the studies so this result should be treated with caution.\nThe proportion of patients reporting side effects of the medication was similar in both groups: 16% in the betahistine groups and 15% in the placebo groups. Overall, 16% of patients of both groups withdrew from the studies.\nThere was insufficient information about the effect of betahistine on objective tests of inner ear balance organ function. There was no information on the effect of betahistine on overall quality of life or falls."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2572 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 1, 2013 on Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for muscle weakness in adults with advanced disease.\nPatients with advanced progressive disease often experience muscle weakness, which can impact adversely on their ability to be independent and their quality of life. In those patients who are unable or unwilling to undertake whole-body exercise, neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) may be an alternative treatment to enhance lower limb muscle strength. Programmes of NMES appear to be acceptable to patients and have led to improvements in muscle function, exercise capacity, and quality of life. However, estimates regarding the effectiveness of NMES based on individual studies lack power and precision.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of NMES on quadriceps muscle strength in adults with advanced disease. Secondary objectives: to examine the safety and acceptability of NMES, and its effect on peripheral muscle function (strength or endurance), muscle mass, exercise capacity, breathlessness, and health-related quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies from searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (OVID) databases to January 2016; citation searches, conference proceedings, and previous systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials in adults with advanced chronic respiratory disease, chronic heart failure, cancer, or HIV/AIDS comparing a programme of NMES as a sole or adjunct intervention to no treatment, placebo NMES, or an active control. We imposed no language restriction.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) between intervention and control groups for outcomes with sufficient data; for other outcomes we described findings from individual studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nEighteen studies (20 reports) involving a total of 933 participants with COPD, chronic respiratory disease, chronic heart failure, and/or thoracic cancer met the inclusion criteria for this update, an additional seven studies since the previous version of this review. All but one study that compared NMES to resistance training compared a programme of NMES to no treatment or placebo NMES. Most studies were conducted in a single centre and had a risk of bias arising from a lack of participant or assessor blinding and small study size. The quality of the evidence using GRADE comparing NMES to control was low for quadriceps muscle strength, moderate for occurrence of adverse events, and very low to low for all other secondary outcomes. We downgraded the quality of evidence ratings predominantly due to inconsistency among study findings and imprecision regarding estimates of effect. The included studies reported no serious adverse events and a low incidence of muscle soreness following NMES.\nNMES led to a statistically significant improvement in quadriceps muscle strength as compared to the control (12 studies; 781 participants; SMD 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.87), equating to a difference of approximately 1.1 kg. An increase in muscle mass was also observed following NMES, though the observable effect appeared dependent on the assessment modality used (eight studies, 314 participants). Across tests of exercise performance, mean differences compared to control were statistically significant for the 6-minute walk test (seven studies; 317 participants; 35 m, 95% CI 14 to 56), but not for the incremental shuttle walk test (three studies; 434 participants; 9 m, 95% CI -35 to 52), endurance shuttle walk test (four studies; 452 participants; 64 m, 95% CI -18 to 146), or for cardiopulmonary exercise testing with cycle ergometry (six studies; 141 participants; 45 mL/minute, 95% CI -7 to 97). Limited data were available for other secondary outcomes, and we could not determine the most beneficial type of NMES programme.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe overall conclusions have not changed from the last publication of this review, although we have included more data, new analyses, and an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. NMES may be an effective treatment for muscle weakness in adults with advanced progressive disease, and could be considered as an exercise treatment for use within rehabilitation programmes. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. We recommend further research to understand the role of NMES as a component of, and in relation to, existing rehabilitation approaches. For example, studies may consider examining NMES as an adjuvant treatment to enhance the strengthening effect of programmes, or support patients with muscle weakness who have difficulty engaging with existing services.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Implications for practice and research\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review suggests that NMES is a potentially effective treatment for muscle weakness in people with progressive diseases such as cancer, advanced chronic respiratory disease, and chronic heart failure, though the quality of the evidence is low. NMES might be considered for use within rehabilitation programmes. It was not possible to compare the effects of NMES to other forms of exercise, for example weight training, because the majority of studies compared NMES to a control group that received no treatment or a sham treatment. Further research is needed to understand the effect of NMES on the ability to exercise and quality of life."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2573 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertension is the leading preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death worldwide. One of the clinical effects of hypertension is left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a process of cardiac remodelling. It is estimated that over 30% of people with hypertension also suffer from LVH, although the prevalence rates vary according to the LVH diagnostic criteria. Severity of LVH is associated with a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and an increased risk of death.\nThe role of antihypertensives in the regression of left ventricular mass has been extensively studied. However, uncertainty exists regarding the role of antihypertensive therapy compared to placebo in the morbidity and mortality of individuals with hypertension-induced LVH.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy compared to placebo or no treatment on morbidity and mortality of adults with hypertension-induced LVH.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Hypertension’s Information Specialist searched the following databases for studies: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (to 26 September 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2020, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 22 September 2020), and Ovid Embase (1974 to 22 September 2020). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also searched Epistemonikos (to 19 February 2021), LILACS BIREME (to 19 February 2021), and Clarivate Web of Science (to 26 February 2021), and contacted authors and funders of the identified trials to obtain additional information and individual participant data. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 12 months’ follow-up comparing antihypertensive pharmacological therapy (monotherapy or in combination) with placebo or no treatment in adults (18 years of age or older) with hypertension-induced LVH were eligible for inclusion. The trials must have analysed at least one primary outcome (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, or total serious adverse events) to be considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened the search results, with any disagreements resolved by consensus amongst all review authors. Two review authors carried out the data extraction and analyses. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies following Cochrane methodology. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included three multicentre RCTs. We selected 930 participants from the included studies for the analyses, with a mean follow-up of 3.8 years (range 3.5 to 4.3 years). All of the included trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis. We obtained evidence for the review by identifying the population of interest from the trials' total samples. None of the trials provided information on the cause of LVH. The intervention varied amongst the included trials: hydrochlorothiazide plus triamterene with the possibility of adding alpha methyldopa, spironolactone, or olmesartan. Placebo was administered to participants in the control arm in two trials, whereas participants in the control arm of the remaining trial did not receive any add-on treatment.\nThe evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of additional antihypertensive pharmacological therapy compared to placebo or no treatment on mortality (14.3% intervention versus 13.6% control; risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.40; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence); cardiovascular events (12.6% intervention versus 11.5% control; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.55; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and hospitalisation for heart failure (10.7% intervention versus 12.5% control; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 studies; 915 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although both arms yielded similar results for total serious adverse events (48.9% intervention versus 48.1% control; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.16; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total adverse events (68.3% intervention versus 67.2% control; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.34; 2 studies; 915 participants), the incidence of withdrawal due to adverse events may be significantly higher with antihypertensive drug therapy (15.2% intervention versus 4.9% control; RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.69 to 5.66; 1 study; 522 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analyses limited to blinded trials, trials with low risk of bias in core domains, and trials with no funding from the pharmaceutical industry did not change the results of the main analyses. Limited evidence on the change in left ventricular mass index prevented us from drawing any firm conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the effects of adding additional antihypertensive drug therapy on the morbidity and mortality of participants with LVH and hypertension compared to placebo. Although the incidence of serious adverse events was similar between study arms, additional antihypertensive therapy may be associated with more withdrawals due to adverse events. Limited and low-certainty evidence requires that caution be used when interpreting the findings. High-quality clinical trials addressing the effect of antihypertensives on clinically relevant variables and carried out specifically in individuals with hypertension-induced LVH are warranted.\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 3 studies that involved 930 people with thickening of the heart muscle and high blood pressure. The largest study was in 692 people, and the smallest study was in 15 people. Study participants were of both genders and on average between 66 and 75 years old. Participants were followed for between three and four years. The studies were conducted in several countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America. One study received pharmaceutical industry funding.\nIt is uncertain if adding drugs for reducing blood pressure has an effect on death, development of heart and blood vessel diseases, or on hospitalisation for heart failure. It is unclear if adding drugs for reducing blood pressure causes more serious harms than placebo or no drug treatment, but it may increase treatment discontinuations due to unwanted effects. It is unclear if adding drugs for reducing blood pressure has an effect on heart muscle mass."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2574 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOptic neuritis is an inflammatory disease of the optic nerve. It usually presents with an abrupt loss of vision and recovery of vision is almost never complete. It occurs more commonly in women than in men. Closely linked in pathogenesis, optic neuritis may be the initial manifestation for multiple sclerosis. In some people, no underlying cause can be found.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of corticosteroids on visual recovery in eyes with acute optic neuritis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1950 to April 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (January 1982 to April 2015), PubMed (January 1946 to April 2015), 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). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) was last searched on 6 March 2014. The electronic databases were last searched on 7 April 2015. We also searched reference lists of identified trial reports for additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids, in any form, dose or route of administration, in people with acute optic neuritis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs with a total of 750 participants. Each trial was conducted in a different country: Denmark, Germany, India, Japan, UK, and United States. Additionally, we identified two ongoing trials not due to be completed until 2016. Among the six trials included in this review, we judged one to be at high risk of bias. The remaining five trials were judged to be at either low or uncertain risk of biases.\nFive trials compared only two intervention groups and one trial had a three-arm comparison of oral corticosteroids or intravenous corticosteroids with placebo. Of the five trials with only two intervention groups, two trials compared oral corticosteroids versus placebo, two trials compared intravenous corticosteroids with placebo, and one trial compared intravenous dexamethasone with intravenous methylprednisolone plus oral prednisolone.\nThree trials evaluating oral corticosteroids used varying doses of corticosteroids versus placebo. In the meta-analyses to assess visual acuity, the risk ratio (RR) was 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.23; participants = 398) at one month; 0.92 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; participants = 355) at six months; and 0.93 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.24; participants = 368) at one year. In the meta-analyses of two trials evaluating corticosteroids with total dose greater than 3000 mg administered intravenously, the RR of normal visual acuity (defined as 20/20 Snellen fraction or equivalent) in the intravenous corticosteroids group compared with the placebo group was 1.05 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; participants = 346) at six months. The RR of contrast sensitivity in the normal range for the same comparison was 1.11 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.33; participants = 346) at six months follow-up. The RR of normal visual field for this comparison was 1.08 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; 346 participants) at six months; and 1.01 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.19; participants = 316) at one year. Four trials reported adverse events primarily related to gastrointestinal symptoms and sleep disturbance; one trial reported minor adverse event of acne.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no conclusive evidence of benefit in terms of recovery to normal visual acuity, visual field or contrast sensitivity six months after initiation with either intravenous or oral corticosteroids at the doses evaluated in trials included in this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence about the effects of corticosteroids on visual recovery of people with acute optic neuritis."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2575 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMiscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that can be caused by a wide range of factors. Poor dietary intake of vitamins has been associated with an increased risk of miscarriage, therefore supplementing women with vitamins either prior to or in early pregnancy may help prevent miscarriage.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness and safety of any vitamin supplementation, on the risk of spontaneous miscarriage.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (6 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing supplementation during pregnancy with one or more vitamins with either placebo, other vitamins, no vitamins or other interventions. We have included supplementation that started prior to conception, periconceptionally or in early pregnancy (less than 20 weeks' gestation).\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The quality of evidence is included for numerical results of outcomes included in the 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 40 trials (involving 276,820 women and 278,413 pregnancies) assessing supplementation with any vitamin(s) starting prior to 20 weeks' gestation and reporting at least one primary outcome that was eligible for the review. Eight trials were cluster-randomised and contributed data for 217,726 women and 219,267 pregnancies in total.\nApproximately half of the included trials were assessed to have a low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and adequate concealment of participants to treatment and control groups.\nVitamin C supplementation\nThere was no difference in the risk of total fetal loss (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.40, seven trials, 18,949 women; high-quality evidence); early or late miscarriage (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26, four trials, 13,346 women; moderate-quality evidence); stillbirth (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.76, seven trials, 21,442 women; moderate-quality evidence) or adverse effects of vitamin supplementation (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.41, one trial, 739 women; moderate-quality evidence) between women receiving vitamin C with vitamin E compared with placebo or no vitamin C groups. No clear differences were seen in the risk of total fetal loss or miscarriage between women receiving any other combination of vitamin C compared with placebo or no vitamin C groups.\nVitamin A supplementation\nNo difference was found in the risk of total fetal loss (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.66, three trials, 1640 women; low-quality evidence); early or late miscarriage (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.62, two trials, 1397 women; low-quality evidence) or stillbirth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.91, three trials, 1640 women; low-quality evidence) between women receiving vitamin A plus iron and folate compared with placebo or no vitamin A groups. There was no evidence of differences in the risk of total fetal loss or miscarriage between women receiving any other combination of vitamin A compared with placebo or no vitamin A groups.\nMultivitamin supplementation\nThere was evidence of a decrease in the risk for stillbirth among women receiving multivitamins plus iron and folic acid compared iron and folate only groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.99, 10 trials, 79,851 women; high-quality evidence). Although total fetal loss was lower in women who were given multivitamins without folic acid (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70, one trial, 907 women); and multivitamins with or without vitamin A (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92, one trial, 1074 women), these findings included one trial each with small numbers of women involved. Also, they include studies where the comparison groups included women receiving either vitamin A or placebo, and thus require caution in interpretation.\nWe found no difference in the risk of total fetal loss (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.00, 10 trials, 94,948 women; high-quality evidence) or early or late miscarriage (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03, 10 trials, 94,948 women; moderate-quality evidence) between women receiving multivitamins plus iron and folic acid compared with iron and folate only groups.\nThere was no evidence of differences in the risk of total fetal loss or miscarriage between women receiving any other combination of multivitamins compared with placebo, folic acid or vitamin A groups.\nFolic acid supplementation\nThere was no evidence of any difference in the risk of total fetal loss, early or late miscarriage, stillbirth or congenital malformations between women supplemented with folic acid with or without multivitamins and/or iron compared with no folic acid groups.\nAntioxidant vitamins supplementation\nThere was no evidence of differences in early or late miscarriage between women given antioxidant compared with the low antioxidant group (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.24 to 5.29, one trial, 110 women).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTaking any vitamin supplements prior to pregnancy or in early pregnancy does not prevent women experiencing miscarriage. However, evidence showed that women receiving multivitamins plus iron and folic acid had reduced risk for stillbirth. There is insufficient evidence to examine the effects of different combinations of vitamins on miscarriage and miscarriage-related outcomes.\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": "Taking vitamin supplements before pregnancy or in early pregnancy may be beneficial; but this review did not show sufficient evidence that taking vitamin supplements prevents miscarriage."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2576 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nResilience can be defined as maintaining or regaining mental health during or after significant adversities such as a potentially traumatising event, challenging life circumstances, a critical life transition or physical illness. Healthcare students, such as medical, nursing, psychology and social work students, are exposed to various study- and work-related stressors, the latter particularly during later phases of health professional education. They are at increased risk of developing symptoms of burnout or mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students, that is, students in training for health professions delivering direct medical care (e.g. medical, nursing, midwifery or paramedic students), and those in training for allied health professions, as distinct from medical care (e.g. psychology, physical therapy or social work students).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, waiting list, usual care, and active or attention control, in adults (18 years and older), who are healthcare students. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception, and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only).\nMain results\nWe included 30 RCTs, of which 24 were set in high-income countries and six in (upper- to lower-) middle-income countries. Twenty-two studies focused solely on healthcare students (1315 participants; number randomised not specified for two studies), including both students in health professions delivering direct medical care and those in allied health professions, such as psychology and physical therapy. Half of the studies were conducted in a university or school setting, including nursing/midwifery students or medical students. Eight studies investigated mixed samples (1365 participants), with healthcare students and participants outside of a health professional study field.\nParticipants mainly included women (63.3% to 67.3% in mixed samples) from young adulthood (mean age range, if reported: 19.5 to 26.83 years; 19.35 to 38.14 years in mixed samples). Seventeen of the studies investigated group interventions of high training intensity (11 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (17 studies). Of the included studies, eight compared a resilience training based on mindfulness versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list).\nThe studies were funded by different sources (e.g. universities, foundations), or a combination of various sources (four studies). Seven studies did not specify a potential funder, and three studies received no funding support.\nRisk of bias was high or unclear, with main flaws in performance, detection, attrition and reporting bias domains.\nAt post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare students receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.78; 9 studies, 561 participants), lower levels of anxiety (SMD −0.45, 95% CI −0.84 to −0.06; 7 studies, 362 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.48 to −0.09; 7 studies, 420 participants). Effect sizes varied between small and moderate. There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on depression (SMD −0.20, 95% CI −0.52 to 0.11; 6 studies, 332 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.15, 95% CI −0.14 to 0.43; 4 studies, 251 participants; very-low certainty evidence).\nAdverse effects were measured in four studies, but data were only reported for three of them. None of the three studies reported any adverse events occurring during the study (very-low certainty of evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor healthcare students, there is very-low certainty evidence for the effect of resilience training on resilience, anxiety, and stress or stress perception at post-intervention.\nThe heterogeneous interventions, the paucity of short-, medium- or long-term data, and the geographical distribution restricted to high-income countries limit the generalisability of results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. Since the findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare students with very-low certainty evidence, high-quality replications and improved study designs (e.g. a consensus on the definition of resilience, the assessment of individual stressor exposure, more attention controls, and longer follow-up periods) are clearly 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": "Healthcare students (e.g. medical, nursing, midwifery, paramedic, psychology, physical therapy, or social work students) have a high academic work load, are required to pass examinations and are exposed to human suffering. This can adversely affect their physical and mental health. Interventions to protect them against such stresses are known as resilience interventions. Previous systematic reviews suggest that resilience interventions can help students cope with stress and protect them against adverse consequences on their physical and mental health."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2577 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEmergency departments (EDs) are facing serious and significant issues in the delivery of effective and efficient care to patients. Acute assessment services have been implemented at many hospitals internationally to assist in maintaining patient flow for identified groups of patients attending the ED. Identifying the risks and benefits, and optimal configurations of these services may be beneficial to those wishing to utilise an acute assessment service to improve patient flow.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of acute assessment services on patient flow following attendance at a hospital ED.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and two trials registers on 24 September 2022 to identify studies. No restrictions were imposed on publication year, publication type, or publication language.\nSelection criteria\nStudies eligible for inclusion were randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials with at least two intervention and two control sites. Participants were adults (as defined by study authors) receiving care either in the ED or the acute assessment service, where both were based in the hospital setting. The comparison was hospital-based acute assessment services with usual, ED-only care. The outcomes of this review were mortality at time point closest to 30 days, length of stay in the service (in minutes), and waiting time to see a doctor (in minutes).\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard procedures of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care for this review (https://epoc.cochrane.org/resources).\nMain results\nWe identified a total of 5754 records in the search. Following assessment of 3609 de-duplicated records, none were found to be eligible for inclusion in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present there are no randomised controlled trials exploring the effects of acute assessment services on patient flow in hospital-based emergency departments compared to usual, ED-only care.\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 were not able to find any studies that compared the emergency department with the acute assessment service."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2578 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAn oro-antral communication is an unnatural opening between the oral cavity and maxillary sinus. When it fails to close spontaneously, it remains patent and is epithelialized to develop into an oro-antral fistula. Various surgical and non-surgical techniques have been used for treating the condition. Surgical procedures include flaps, grafts and other techniques like re-implantation of third molars. Non-surgical techniques include allogenic materials and xenografts. This is an update of a review first published in May 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of various interventions for the treatment of oro-antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health’s Trials Register (to 23 May 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 23 May 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 23 May 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We also searched the reference lists of included and excluded trials for any randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs evaluating any intervention for treating oro-antral communications or oro-antral fistulae due to dental procedures. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. We excluded studies on participants who had oro-antral communications, fistulae or both related to Caldwell-Luc procedure or surgical excision of tumours.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials. Two review authors assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data independently. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included only one study in this review, which compared two surgical interventions: pedicled buccal fat pad flap and buccal flap for the treatment of oro-antral communications. The study involved 20 participants. The risk of bias was unclear. The relevant outcome reported in this trial was successful (complete) closure of oro-antral communication.\nThe quality of the evidence for the primary outcome was very low. The study did not find evidence of a difference between interventions for the successful (complete) closure of an oro-antral communication (RR 1.00, 95% Cl 0.83 to 1.20) one month after the surgery. All oro-antral communications in both groups were successfully closed so there were no adverse effects due to treatment failure.\nWe did not find trials evaluating any other intervention for treating oro-antral communications or fistulae due to dental procedures.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low quality evidence from a single small study that compared pedicled buccal fat pad and buccal flap. The evidence was insufficient to judge whether there is a difference in the effectiveness of these interventions as all oro-antral communications in the study were successfully closed by one month after surgery. Large, well-conducted RCTs investigating different interventions for the treatment of oro-antral communications and fistulae caused by dental procedures are needed to inform clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The floor of the main sinus near the nose is thin and lies directly above the roots of the teeth at the back of the mouth. Sometimes following infection or dental treatment, this structure becomes damaged and openings or channels between the mouth and the sinus are formed. These are known as oro-antral communications (OAC). If the OAC is left open (then described as an oro-antral fistula (OAF), it may become permanent, leading to long-lasting sinus infections. This condition can be treated surgically by using flaps, grafts and other techniques; or non-surgically using a variety of methods and materials. There is little evidence for the most effective and safe treatments for closing OACs and OAFs and clinicians who treat these conditions have identified an urgent need for this. This is an update of a review first published in May 2016."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2579 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDysphagia (swallowing problems), which is common after stroke, is associated with increased risk of death or dependency, occurrence of pneumonia, poor quality of life, and longer hospital stay. Treatments provided to improve dysphagia are aimed at accelerating recovery of swallowing function and reducing these risks. This is an update of the review first published in 1999 and updated in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of swallowing therapy on death or dependency among stroke survivors with dysphagia within six months of stroke onset.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (26 June 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 June 2018), MEDLINE (26 June 2018), Embase (26 June 2018), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (26 June 2018), Web of Science Core Collection (26 June 2018), SpeechBITE (28 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.Gov (26 June 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 June 2018). We also searched Google Scholar (7 June 2018) and the reference lists of relevant trials and review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for people with dysphagia and recent stroke (within six months).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence, and resolved disagreements through discussion with the third review author (PB). We used random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs), and provided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each.\nThe primary outcome was functional outcome, defined as death or dependency (or death or disability), at the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes were case fatality at the end of the trial, length of inpatient stay, proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial, swallowing ability, penetration aspiration score, or pneumonia, pharyngeal transit time, institutionalisation, and nutrition.\nMain results\nWe added 27 new studies (1777 participants) to this update to include a total of 41 trials (2660 participants).\nWe assessed the efficacy of swallowing therapy overall and in subgroups by type of intervention: acupuncture (11 studies), behavioural interventions (nine studies), drug therapy (three studies), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES; six studies), pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES; four studies), physical stimulation (three studies), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS; two studies), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; nine studies).\nSwallowing therapy had no effect on the primary outcome (death or dependency/disability at the end of the trial) based on data from one trial (two data sets) (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.75; 306 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.86; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy had no effect on case fatality at the end of the trial (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 766 participants; 14 studies; I² = 6%; P = 0.99; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy probably reduced length of inpatient stay (MD -2.9, 95% CI -5.65 to -0.15; 577 participants; 8 studies; I² = 11%; P = 0.04; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.54). Swallowing therapy may have reduced the proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; 1487 participants; 23 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Trial results show no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.91). Swallowing therapy may improve swallowing ability (SMD -0.66, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.32; 1173 participants; 26 studies; I² = 86%; P = 0.0002; very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.09). We noted moderate to substantial heterogeneity between trials for these interventions. Swallowing therapy did not reduce the penetration aspiration score (i.e. it did not reduce radiological aspiration) (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.00; 303 participants; 11 studies; I² = 46%; P = 0.05; low-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy may reduce the incidence of chest infection or pneumonia (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78; 618 participants; 9 studies; I² = 59%; P = 0.009; very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate- and low-quality evidence suggests that swallowing therapy did not have a significant effect on the outcomes of death or dependency/disability, case fatality at the end of the trial, or penetration aspiration score. However, swallowing therapy may have reduced length of hospital stay, dysphagia, and chest infections, and may have improved swallowing ability. However, these results are based on evidence of variable quality, involving a variety of interventions. Further high-quality trials are needed to test whether specific interventions are effective.\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": "Swallowing therapy did not result in less death or disability among stroke survivors, nor did it lead to a safer swallow after treatment. However, some individual swallowing therapies seemed to reduce hospital length of stay, lessen the chance of getting a chest infection or pneumonia, or improve swallowing ability and recovery from swallowing problems. Many of the swallowing therapies involved different methods of delivery, so it is still not clear which approach is most effective for each type of therapy."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2580 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFactor Xa inhibitors and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are now recommended in treatment guidelines for preventing stroke and systemic embolic events in people with atrial fibrillation (AF). This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment with factor Xa inhibitors versus VKAs for preventing cerebral or systemic embolic events in people with AF.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group and the Cochrane Heart Group (September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (August 2017), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2017), and Embase (1980 to April 2017). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies, authors and sponsors of relevant published trials. We used outcome data from marketing authorisation applications of apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban that were submitted to regulatory authorities in Europe and the USA.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared the effects of long-term treatment (lasting more than four weeks) with factor Xa inhibitors versus VKAs for preventing cerebral and systemic embolism in people with AF.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary efficacy outcome was the composite endpoint of all strokes and systemic embolic events. Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of the trials and the risk of bias. We calculated a weighted estimate of the typical treatment effect across trials using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) by means of a fixed-effect model. In case of moderate or high heterogeneity of treatment effects, we used a random-effects model to compare the overall treatment effects. We also performed a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding any open-label studies.\nMain results\nWe included data from 67,688 participants randomised into 13 RCTs. The included trials directly compared dose-adjusted warfarin with either apixaban, betrixaban, darexaban, edoxaban, idraparinux, idrabiotaparinux, or rivaroxaban. The majority of the included data (approximately 90%) was from apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.\nThe composite primary efficacy endpoint of all strokes (both ischaemic and haemorrhagic) and non-central nervous systemic embolic events was reported in all of the included studies. Treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly decreased the number of strokes and systemic embolic events compared with dose-adjusted warfarin in participants with AF (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; 13 studies; 67,477 participants; high-quality evidence).\nTreatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of major bleedings compared with warfarin (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.84; 13 studies; 67,396 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was, however, statistically significant and high heterogeneity (I2 = 83%). When we repeated this analysis using a random-effects model, it did not show a statistically significant decrease in the number of major bleedings (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17). A pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding all open-label studies showed that treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of major bleedings compared with warfarin (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81), but high heterogeneity was also observed in this analysis (I2 = 72%). The same sensitivity analysis using a random-effects model also showed a statistically significant decrease in the number of major bleedings in participants treated with factor Xa inhibitors (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96).\nTreatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the risk of intracranial haemorrhages (ICHs) compared with warfarin (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59; 12 studies; 66,259 participants; high-quality evidence). We observed moderate, but statistically significant heterogeneity (I2 = 55%). The pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding open-label studies showed that treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of ICHs compared with warfarin (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.56), with low, non-statistically significant heterogeneity (I2 = 27%).\nTreatment with a factor Xa inhibitor also significantly reduced the number of all-cause deaths compared with warfarin (OR 0.89, 95% 0.83 to 0.95; 10 studies; 65,624 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTreatment with factor Xa inhibitors significantly reduced the number of strokes and systemic embolic events compared with warfarin in people with AF. The absolute effect of factor Xa inhibitors compared with warfarin treatment was, however, rather small. Factor Xa inhibitors also reduced the number of ICHs, all-cause deaths and major bleedings compared with warfarin, although the evidence for a reduction in the latter is less robust.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We compared the benefits and harms of two types of so-called \"blood-thinning\" drugs (factor Xa inhibitors and vitamin K antagonists) in people with atrial fibrillation."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2581 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRepetitive task training (RTT) involves the active practice of task-specific motor activities and is a component of current therapy approaches in stroke rehabilitation.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective: To determine if RTT improves upper limb function/reach and lower limb function/balance in adults after stroke.\n\nSecondary objectives: 1) To determine the effect of RTT on secondary outcome measures including activities of daily living, global motor function, quality of life/health status and adverse events. 2) To determine the factors that could influence primary and secondary outcome measures, including the effect of 'dose' of task practice; type of task (whole therapy, mixed or single task); timing of the intervention and type of intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (4 March 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 5: 1 October 2006 to 24 June 2016); MEDLINE (1 October 2006 to 8 March 2016); Embase (1 October 2006 to 8 March 2016); CINAHL (2006 to 23 June 2016); AMED (2006 to 21 June 2016) and SPORTSDiscus (2006 to 21 June 2016).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised/quasi-randomised trials in adults after stroke, where the intervention was an active motor sequence performed repetitively within a single training session, aimed towards a clear functional goal.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and appraised trials. We determined the quality of evidence within each study and outcome group using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. We did not assess follow-up outcome data using GRADE. We contacted trial authors for additional information.\nMain results\nWe included 33 trials with 36 intervention-control pairs and 1853 participants. The risk of bias present in many studies was unclear due to poor reporting; the evidence has therefore been rated 'moderate' or 'low' when using the GRADE system.\nThere is low-quality evidence that RTT improves arm function (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.49; 11 studies, number of participants analysed = 749), hand function (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.51; eight studies, number of participants analysed = 619), and lower limb functional measures (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.48; five trials, number of participants analysed = 419).\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that RTT improves walking distance (mean difference (MD) 34.80, 95% CI 18.19 to 51.41; nine studies, number of participants analysed = 610) and functional ambulation (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.66; eight studies, number of participants analysed = 525). We found significant differences between groups for both upper-limb (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26; three studies, number of participants analysed = 153) and lower-limb (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.52; eight studies, number of participants analysed = 471) outcomes up to six months post treatment but not after six months. Effects were not modified by intervention type, dosage of task practice or time since stroke for upper or lower limb. There was insufficient evidence to be certain about the risk of adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low- to moderate-quality evidence that RTT improves upper and lower limb function; improvements were sustained up to six months post treatment. Further research should focus on the type and amount of training, including ways of measuring the number of repetitions actually performed by participants. The definition of RTT will need revisiting prior to further updates of this review in order to ensure it remains clinically meaningful and distinguishable from other interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In comparison with usual care (standard physiotherapy) or placebo groups, people who practiced functional tasks showed small improvements in arm function, hand function, walking distance and measures of walking ability. Improvements in arm and leg function were maintained up to six months later. There was not enough evidence to be certain about the risk of adverse events, for example falls. Further research is needed to determine the best type of task practice, and whether more sustained practice could show better results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2582 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlthough research on non-surgical treatments for neck pain (NP) is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. Addressing cognitive and behavioural factors might reduce the clinical burden and the costs of NP in society.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of CBT among individuals with subacute and chronic NP. Specifically, the following comparisons were investigated: (1) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list controls; (2) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus other types of interventions; (3) cognitive-behavioural therapy in addition to another intervention (e.g. physiotherapy) versus the other intervention alone.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2014. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that assessed the use of CBT in adults with subacute and chronic NP.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 10 randomised trials (836 participants) in this review. Four trials (40%) had low risk of bias, the remaining 60% of trials had a high risk of bias.\nThe quality of the evidence for the effects of CBT on patients with chronic NP was from very low to moderate. There was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to -0.16), disability (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.01), and quality of life (SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.31) at short-term follow-up, while there was from very low to low quality evidence of no effect on various psychological indicators at short-term follow-up. Both at short- and intermediate-term follow-up, CBT did not affect pain (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.21, low quality, at short-term follow-up; MD -0.89, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.94, low quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) or disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.20, moderate quality, at short-term follow-up; SMD -0.24, 95% CI-0.54 to 0.07, moderate quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) compared to other types of interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions for improving kinesiophobia at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.08, I2 = 0%). Finally, there was very low quality evidence that CBT in addition to another intervention did not differ from the other intervention alone in terms of effect on pain (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.02) and disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.36) at short-term follow-up.\nFor patients with subacute NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.00), while no difference was found in terms of effect on disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.12) and kinesiophobia.\nNone of the included studies reported on adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWith regard to chronic neck pain, CBT was found to be statistically significantly more effective for short-term pain reduction only when compared to no treatment, but these effects could not be considered clinically meaningful. When comparing both CBT to other types of interventions and CBT in addition to another intervention to the other intervention alone, no differences were found. For patients with subacute NP, CBT was significantly better than other types of interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up, while no difference was found for disability and kinesiophobia. Further research is recommended to investigate the long-term benefits and risks of CBT including for the different subgroups of subjects with NP.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Neck pain (NP) is defined as pain, muscle tension, or stiffness localized in the neck and may originate from many structures, including the spine or soft tissues. Risk factors include age, gender, a history of pain, poor posture, repetitive strain, and social and psychological factors.\nNP is experienced by people of all ages and both genders and is an important cause of medical expenses, work absenteeism, and disability. Current management of NP includes a range of different treatments such as reassurance, education, promotion of a timely return to normal activities, appropriate use of painkillers, and exercises.\nThere remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for these patients. CBT is a psychological technique that encompasses a wide set of interventions conducted by health professionals. It includes cognitive and behavioural modifications of specific activities to reduce the impact of pain as well as physical and psychosocial disability and to overcome dangerous barriers to physical and psychosocial recovery."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2583 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAfter the introduction of microsurgical principles in endodontics involving new techniques for root canal treatment, there has been a drive to enhance the visualisation of the surgical field. It is important to know if the technical advantages for the operator brought in by magnification devices such as surgical microscopes, endoscopes and magnifying loupes, are also associated with advantages for the patient in terms of improvement of clinical and radiographic outcomes. This version updates the review published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate and compare the effects of endodontic treatment performed with the aid of magnification devices versus endodontic treatment without magnification devices. We also aimed to compare the different magnification devices used in endodontics with one another.\nSearch methods\nThe following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 13 October 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 13 October 2015) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 13 October 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing endodontic therapy performed with versus without one or more magnification devices, as well as randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing two or more magnification devices used as an adjunct to endodontic therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe conducted screening of search results independently and in duplicate. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.\nMain results\nNo trials met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo article was identified in the current literature that satisfied the criteria for inclusion. It is unknown if and how the type of magnification device affects the treatment outcome, considering the high number of factors that may have a significant impact on the success of endodontic surgical procedure. This should be investigated by further long-term, well-designed RCTs that conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2584 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nElective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or without laparoscopic assistance. Antibiotic prophylaxis consists of administration of antibiotics to reduce the rate of postoperative infection, which otherwise affects 40%-50% of women after vaginal hysterectomy, and more than 20% after abdominal hysterectomy. No Cochrane review has systematically assessed evidence on this topic.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched electronic databases to November 2016 (including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as clinical trials registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of antibiotics versus placebo or other antibiotics as prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used Cochrane standard methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe included in this review 37 RCTs, which performed 20 comparisons of various antibiotics versus placebo and versus one another (6079 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of study findings were risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, imprecision due to small samples and low event rates, and inadequate reporting of adverse effects.\nAny antibiotic versus placebo\nVaginal hysterectomy\nLow-quality evidence shows that women who received antibiotic prophylaxis had fewer total postoperative infections (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; four RCTs, N = 293; I2 = 85%), less urinary tract infection (UTI) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; eight RCTs, N = 1473; I2 = 44%), fewer pelvic infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.39; 11 RCTs, N = 1693; I2 = 57%), and fewer postoperative fevers (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54; nine RCTs, N = 1562; I2 = 47%) than women who did not receive such prophylaxis. This suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 34% to 7% to 14%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; one RCT, N = 146; very low-quality evidence).\nData were insufficient for comparison of adverse effects.\nAbdominal hysterectomy\nWomen who received antibiotic prophylaxis of any class had fewer total postoperative infections (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.67; one RCT, N = 158; low-quality evidence), abdominal wound infections (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.73; 11 RCTs, N = 2247; I2 = 6%; moderate-quality evidence), UTIs (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.53; 11 RCTs, N = 2705; I2 = 28%; moderate-quality evidence), pelvic infections (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; 11 RCTs, N = 1883; I2 = 11%; moderate-quality evidence), and postoperative fevers (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.70; 11 RCTs, N = 2394; I2 = 55%; moderate-quality evidence) than women who did not receive prophylaxis, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 16% to 1% to 6%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.69; two RCTs, N = 476; I2 = 29%; very low-quality evidence).\nIt is unclear whether rates of adverse effects differed between groups (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.18; two RCTs, N = 430; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence).\nHead-to-head comparisons between antibiotics\nVaginal hysterectomy\nWe identified four comparisons: cephalosporin versus penicillin (two RCTs, N = 470), cephalosporin versus tetracycline (one RCT, N = 51), antiprotozoal versus lincosamide (one RCT, N = 80), and cephalosporin versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes, except that fewer cases of total postoperative infection and postoperative fever were reported in women who received cephalosporin than in those who received antiprotozoal.\nOnly one comparison (cephalosporin vs penicillin; two RCTs, N = 451) yielded data on adverse effects and showed no differences between groups.\nAbdominal hysterectomy\nWe identified only one comparison: cephalosporin versus penicillin (N = 220). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes. Adverse effects were not reported.\nCombined antibiotics versus single antibiotics\nVaginal hysterectomy\nWe identified three comparisons: cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus cephalosporin (one RCT, N = 78), cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78), and penicillin plus antiprotozoal versus penicillin (one RCT, N = 18). Data were unavailable for most outcomes, including adverse effects. We found no evidence of differences between groups, except that fewer women receiving cephalosporin with antiprotozoal received a diagnosis of total postoperative infection, UTI, or postoperative fever compared with women receiving antiprotozoal.\nAbdominal hysterectomy\nWe identified one comparison (penicillin plus antiprotozoal vs penicillin only; two RCT, N = 155). Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. Adverse effects were not reported.\nComparison of cephalosporins in different regimens\nSingle small trials addressed dose comparisons and provided no data for most outcomes, including adverse effects. Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. No trials compared route of administration.\nThe quality of evidence for all head-to-head and dose comparisons was very low owing to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias related to poor reporting of methods.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAntibiotic prophylaxis appears to be effective in preventing postoperative infection in women undergoing elective vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy, regardless of the dose regimen. However, evidence is insufficient to show whether use of prophylactic antibiotics influences rates of adverse effects. Similarly, evidence is insufficient to show which (if any) individual antibiotic, dose regimen, or route of administration is safest and most effective. The most recent studies included in this review were 14 years old at the time of our search. Thus findings from included studies may not reflect current practice in perioperative and postoperative care and may not show locoregional antimicrobial resistance patterns.\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 37 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which included a total of 6079 women and compared 20 different types of antibiotics versus placebo (an inactive pill) or versus one another."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2585 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic respiratory conditions are major causes of mortality and morbidity. Children with chronic health conditions have increased morbidity associated with their physical, emotional, and general well-being. Acute respiratory exacerbations (AREs) are common in children with chronic respiratory disease, often requiring admission to hospital. Reducing the frequency of AREs and recurrent hospitalisations is therefore an important goal in the individual and public health management of chronic respiratory illnesses in children. Discharge planning is used to decide what a person needs for transition from one level of care to another and is usually considered in the context of discharge from hospital to the home. Discharge planning from hospital for ongoing management of an illness has historically been referral to a general practitioner or allied health professional or self management by the individual and their family with limited communication between the hospital and patient once discharged. Effective discharge planning can decrease the risk of recurrent AREs requiring medical care. An individual caseworker-assigned discharge plan may further decrease exacerbations.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of individual caseworker-assigned discharge plans, as compared to non-caseworker-assigned plans, in preventing hospitalisation for AREs in children with chronic lung diseases such as asthma and bronchiectasis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trials registries, and reference lists of articles. The latest searches were undertaken in November 2017.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials comparing individual caseworker-assigned discharge planning compared to traditional discharge-planning approaches (including self management), and their effectiveness in reducing the subsequent need for emergency care for AREs (hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and/or unscheduled general practitioner visits) in children hospitalised with an acute exacerbation of chronic respiratory disease. We excluded studies that included children with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane Review methodological approaches. Relevant studies were independently selected in duplicate. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the authors of one study for further information.\nMain results\nWe included four studies involving a total of 773 randomised participants aged between 14 months and 16 years. All four studies involved children with asthma, with the case-planning undertaken by a trained nurse educator. However, the discharge planning/education differed among the studies. We could include data from only two studies (361 children) in the meta-analysis. Two further studies enrolled children in both inpatient and outpatient settings, and one of these studies also included children with acute wheezing illness (no previous asthma diagnosis); the data specific to this review could not be obtained. For the primary outcome of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation, those in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be rehospitalised (odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.50) compared to controls. This equates to 189 (95% CI 124 to 236) fewer admissions per 1000 children. No adverse events were reported in any study. In the context of substantial statistical heterogeneity between the two studies, there were no statistically significant effects on emergency department (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.05) or general practitioner (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.44) presentations. There were no data on cost-effectiveness, length of stay of subsequent hospitalisations, or adherence to medications. One study reported quality of life, with no significant differences observed between the intervention and control groups.\nWe considered three of the studies to have an unclear risk of bias, primarily due to inadequate description of the blinding of participants and investigators. The fourth study was assessed as at high risk of bias as a single unblinded investigator was used. Using the GRADE system, we assessed the quality of the evidence as moderate for the outcome of hospitalisation and low for the outcomes of emergency department visits and general practitioner consultations.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence suggests that individual caseworker-assigned discharge plans, as compared to non-caseworker-assigned plans, may be beneficial in preventing hospital readmissions for acute exacerbations in children with asthma. There was no clear indication that the intervention reduces emergency department and general practitioner attendances for asthma, and there is an absence of data for children with other chronic respiratory conditions. Given the potential benefit and cost savings to the healthcare sector and families if hospitalisations and outpatient attendances can be reduced, there is a need for further randomised controlled trials encompassing different chronic respiratory illnesses, ethnicity, socio-economic settings, and cost-effectiveness, as well as defining the essential components of a complex intervention.\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": "Individual caseworker-assigned discharge planned management, as compared to non-caseworker-assigned management, may prevent readmissions to hospital for asthma flare-ups in children. However, the current evidence is limited to only two studies in children with asthma. Further studies are needed in a broad range of long-term breathing diseases in childhood."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2586 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm birth (PTB) is a major factor contributing to global rates of neonatal death and to longer-term health problems for surviving infants. Both the World Health Organization and the United Nations consider prevention of PTB as central to improving health care for pregnant women and newborn babies. Current preventative clinical strategies show varied efficacy in different populations of pregnant women, frustrating women and health providers alike, while researchers call for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms that lead to PTB.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to summarise all evidence for interventions relevant to the prevention of PTB as reported in Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs). We intended to highlight promising interventions and to identify SRs in need of an update.\nMethods\nWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2 November 2017) with key words to capture any Cochrane SR that prespecified or reported a PTB outcome. Inclusion criteria focused on pregnant women without signs of preterm labour or ruptured amniotic membranes. We included reviews of interventions for pregnant women irrespective of their risk status. We followed standard Cochrane methods.\nWe applied GRADE criteria to evaluate the quality of SR evidence. We assigned graphic icons to classify the effectiveness of interventions as: clear evidence of benefit; clear evidence of harm; clear evidence of no effect or equivalence; possible benefit; possible harm; or unknown benefit or harm. We defined clear evidence of benefit and clear evidence of harm to be GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a confidence interval (CI) that does not cross the line of no effect. Clear evidence of no effect or equivalence is GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a narrow CI crossing the line of no effect. Possible benefit and possible harm refer to GRADE low-quality evidence with a clear effect (CI does not cross the line of no effect) or GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a wide CI. Unknown harm or benefit refers to GRADE low- or very low-quality evidence with a wide CI.\nMain results\nWe included 83 SRs; 70 had outcome data. Below we highlight key results from a subset of 36 SRs of interventions intended to prevent PTB.\nOutcome: preterm birth\nClear evidence of benefit\nFour SRs reported clear evidence of benefit to prevent specific populations of pregnant women from giving birth early, including midwife-led continuity models of care versus other models of care for all women; screening for lower genital tract infections for pregnant women less than 37 weeks' gestation and without signs of labour, bleeding or infection; and zinc supplementation for pregnant women without systemic illness. Cervical cerclage showed clear benefit for women with singleton pregnancy and high risk of PTB only.\nClear evidence of harm\nNo included SR reported clear evidence of harm.\nNo effect or equivalence\nFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB, bedrest for women with singleton pregnancy and antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester were of no effect or equivalent to a comparator.\nPossible benefit\nFour SRs found possible benefit in: group antenatal care for all pregnant women; antibiotics for pregnant women with asymptomatic bacteriuria; pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation for pregnant women who smoke; and vitamin D supplements alone for women without pre-existing conditions such as diabetes.\nPossible harm\nOne SR reported possible harm (increased risk of PTB) with intramuscular progesterone, but this finding is only relevant to women with multiple pregnancy and high risk of PTB. Another review found possible harm with vitamin D, calcium and other minerals for pregnant women without pre-existing conditions.\nOutcome: perinatal death\nClear evidence of benefit\nTwo SRs reported clear evidence of benefit to reduce pregnant women's risk of perinatal death: midwife-led continuity models of care for all pregnant women; and fetal and umbilical Doppler for high-risk pregnant women.\nClear evidence of harm\nNo included SR reported clear evidence of harm.\nNo effect or equivalence\nFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB, antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester was of no effect or equivalent to a comparator.\nPossible benefit\nOne SR reported possible benefit with cervical cerclage for women with singleton pregnancy and high risk of PTB.\nPossible harm\nOne SR reported possible harm associated with a reduced schedule of antenatal visits for pregnant women at low risk of pregnancy complications; importantly, these women already received antenatal care in settings with limited resources.\nOutcomes: preterm birth and perinatal death\nUnknown benefit or harm\nFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB for any reason including multiple pregnancy, home uterine monitoring was of unknown benefit or harm. For pregnant women at high risk due to multiple pregnancy: bedrest, prophylactic oral betamimetics, vaginal progesterone and cervical cerclage were all of unknown benefit or harm.\nAuthors' conclusions\nImplications for practice\nThe overview serves as a map and guide to all current evidence relevant to PTB prevention published in the Cochrane Library. Of 70 SRs with outcome data, we identified 36 reviews of interventions with the aim of preventing PTB. Just four of these SRs had evidence of clear benefit to women, with an additional four SRs reporting possible benefit. No SR reported clear harm, which is an important finding for women and health providers alike.\nThe overview summarises no evidence for the clinically important interventions of cervical pessary, cervical length assessment and vaginal progesterone because these Cochrane Reviews were not current. These are active areas for PTB research.\nThe graphic icons we assigned to SR effect estimates do not constitute clinical guidance or an endorsement of specific interventions for pregnant women. It remains critical for pregnant women and their healthcare providers to carefully consider whether specific strategies to prevent PTB will be of benefit for individual women, or for specific populations of women.\nImplications for research\nFormal consensus work is needed to establish standard language for overviews of reviews and to define the limits of their interpretation.\nClinicians, researchers and funders must address the lack of evidence for interventions relevant to women at high risk of PTB due to multiple pregnancy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Outcomes: preterm birth and perinatal death\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Unknown benefit or harm\nFor pregnant women at high risk of preterm birth for any reason including multiple pregnancy, home uterine monitoring was of unknown benefit or harm. For high-risk pregnant women with multiple pregnancy: bedrest, prophylactic oral betamimetics, vaginal progesterone and cervical cerclage were all of unknown benefit or harm."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2587 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHealthcare workers are at risk of acquiring viral diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV through exposure to contaminated blood and body fluids at work. Most often infection occurs when a healthcare worker inadvertently punctures the skin of their hand with a sharp implement that has been used in the treatment of an infected patient, thus bringing the patient's blood into contact with their own. Such occurrences are commonly known as percutaneous exposure incidents.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of extra gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents among healthcare workers versus no intervention or alternative interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC, CISDOC, PsycINFO and LILACS until 26 June 2013.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthcare workers as the majority of participants, extra gloves or special types of gloves as the intervention, and exposure to blood or bodily fluids as the outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses for seven different comparisons.\nMain results\nWe found 34 RCTs that included 6890 person-operations as participating units and reported on 46 intervention-control group comparisons. We grouped interventions as follows: increased layers of standard gloves, gloves manufactured with special protective materials or thicker gloves, and gloves with puncture indicator systems. Indicator gloves show a coloured spot when they are perforated. Participants were surgeons in all studies and they used at least one pair of standard gloves as the control intervention. Twenty-seven studies also included other surgical staff (e.g. nurses). All but one study used perforations in gloves as an indication of exposure. The median control group rate was 18.5 perforations per 100 person-operations. Seven studies reported blood stains on the skin and two studies reported self reported needlestick injuries. Six studies reported dexterity as visual analogue scale scores for the comparison double versus single gloves, 13 studies reported outer glove perforations. We judged the included studies to have a moderate to high risk of bias.\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that double gloves compared to single gloves reduce the risk of glove perforation (rate ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.37) and the risk of blood stains on the skin (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70). Two studies with a high risk of bias also reported the effect of double compared to single gloves on needlestick injuries (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.62).\nWe found low-quality evidence in one small study that the use of three gloves compared to two gloves reduces the risk of perforation further (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.52). There was similar low-quality evidence that the use of one fabric glove over one normal glove reduces perforations compared to two normal gloves (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93). There was moderate-quality evidence that this effect was similar for the use of one special material glove between two normal material gloves. Thicker gloves did not perform better than thinner gloves.\nThere was moderate to low-quality evidence in two studies that an indicator system does not reduce the total number of perforations during an operation even though it reduces the number of perforations per glove used.\nThere was moderate-quality evidence that double gloves have a similar number of outer glove perforations as single gloves, indicating that there is no loss of dexterity with double gloves (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.31).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that double gloving compared to single gloving during surgery reduces perforations and blood stains on the skin, indicating a decrease in percutaneous exposure incidents. There is low-quality evidence that triple gloving and the use of special gloves can further reduce the risk of glove perforations compared to double gloving with normal material gloves. The preventive effect of double gloves on percutaneous exposure incidents in surgery does not need further research. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of special material gloves and triple gloves, and of gloves in other occupational groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Sensitivity of the fingers\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There were no indications that using more layers of gloves decreased sensitivity of the fingers."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2588 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBecause of poverty, children and families in low- and middle-income countries often face significant impediments to health and well-being. Centre-based day care services may influence the development of children and the economic situation of parents by providing good quality early childhood care and by freeing parents to participate in the labour force.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of centre-based day care without additional interventions (e.g. psychological or medical services, parent training) on the development, health and well-being of children and families in low- and middle-income countries (as defined by the World Bank 2011).\nSearch methods\nIn April 2014, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC and 16 other sources, including several World Health Organization (WHO) regional databases. We also searched two trials registers, websites of government and non-government agencies and reference lists of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials and prospective non-randomised studies with contemporaneous control groups and assessments both before and after intervention. We considered non-randomised controlled trials, as centre-based care in low- and middle-income countries is unlikely to be studied using randomised controlled trials (Higgins 2011). We included the following outcomes: child intellectual development, child psychosocial development, maternal and family outcomes and incidence of infectious diseases.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from the single included study.\nMain results\nOnly one trial, involving 256 children, met the inclusion criteria for this review. This study was assessed as having high risk of bias because of non-random allocation, incomplete outcome data and insufficient control of confounding factors. Results from this study suggest that centre-based day care may have a positive effect on child cognitive ability compared with no treatment (care at home) (assessed using a modified version of the British Ability Scale-II (BAS-II) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.00, 256 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure other variables relevant to this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe single study included in this review provides limited evidence on the effects of centre-based day care for children younger than five years of age in low- and middle-income countries. This study was at high risk of bias and may have limited generalisability to other low- and middle-income countries. Many of the studies excluded from this review paired day care attendance with co-interventions that are unlikely to be provided in normal day care centres. Effectiveness studies on centre-based day care without these co-interventions are few, and the need for such studies is significant. In future studies, comparisons might include home visits or alternative day care arrangements.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included studies that assessed the effects of centre-based day care for children younger than five years of age in low- and middle-countries. To isolate the effects of day care, we excluded interventions that involved medical, psychological or non–child-focused co-interventions. Of the 34,902 citations identified through electronic searches, we found only one study that met our inclusion criteria. This study was based in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania/Zanzibar and included 256 children. Evidence is current to April 2014."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2589 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an assistant using a strict aseptic technique; it is important to monitor the infant during all the steps of the procedure. Without adequate analgesia, LP can cause considerable pain and discomfort. As newborns have increased sensitivity to pain, it is crucial to adequately manage the procedural pain of LP in this population.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms, including pain, discomfort, and success rate, of any pharmacological intervention during lumbar puncture in newborn infants, compared to placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, or other pharmacological interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trial registries in December 2022. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing drugs used for pain management, sedation, or both, during LP. We considered the following drugs suitable for inclusion.\n• Topical anesthetics (e.g. eutectic mixture of local anesthetics [EMLA], lidocaine)\n• Opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl)\n• Alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine)\n• N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (e.g. ketamine)\n• Other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol)\n• Sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam)\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our main outcomes were successful LP on first attempt, total number of LP attempts, episodes of bradycardia, pain assessed with validated scales, episodes of desaturation, number of episodes of apnea, and number of infants with one or more episodes of apnea. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included three studies (two RCTs and one quasi-RCT) that enrolled 206 newborns. One study included only term infants. All studies assessed topical treatment versus placebo or no intervention. The topical anesthetics were lidocaine 4%, lidocaine 1%, and EMLA. We identified no completed studies on opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alpha-2 agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, other analgesics, sedatives, or head-to-head comparisons (drug A versus drug B).\nBased on very low-certainty evidence from one quasi-RCT of 100 LPs in 76 infants, we are unsure if topical anesthetics (lidocaine), compared to no anesthesia, has an effect on the following outcomes.\n• Successful LP on first attempt (first-attempts success in 48% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 42% of LPs in the control group)\n• Number of attempts per LP (mean 1.9 attempts, [standard error of the mean 0.2] in the lidocaine group, and mean 2.1 attempts [standard error of the mean 2.1] in the control group)\n• Episodes of bradycardia (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 4% of LPs in the control group)\n• Episodes of desaturation (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 8% of LPs in the control group)\n• Occurrence of apnea (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.79; risk difference [RD] 0.02, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.08).\nTopical anesthetics compared to placebo may reduce pain assessed with the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score (SMD −1.00 standard deviation (SD), 95% CI −1.47 to −0.53; I² = 98%; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies in this comparison reported total number of episodes of apnea.\nWe identified three ongoing studies, which will assess the effects of EMLA, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Three studies are awaiting classification.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical anesthetics (lidocaine) compared to no anesthesia on successful lumbar puncture on first attempt, the number of attempts per lumbar puncture, episodes of bradycardia, episodes of desaturation, and occurrence of apnea. Compared to placebo, topical anesthetics (lidocaine or EMLA) may reduce pain assessed with the NFCS score. One ongoing study will assess the effects of systemic treatment.\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 three studies that involved 206 newborn infants undergoing spinal tap. It is unclear whether painkillers applied to the skin (topical anesthetics), compared to no medicine, have an effect on the number of successful spinal taps on the first try, the number of attempts per successful spinal tap, episodes of bradycardia, episodes of desaturation, and episodes of apnea.\nTopical anesthetics compared to placebo (dummy medicine) may reduce the pain experienced by newborn infants by 15% to 20%.\nThere are still three large ongoing studies assessing the effects of other medicines, but their results are not yet published. We also listed three studies as awaiting classification because we do not have enough information to include or exclude them."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2590 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFailure of implantation and conception may result from inability of the blastocyst to escape from its outer coat, which is known as the zona pellucida. Artificial disruption of this coat is known as assisted hatching and has been proposed as a method for improving the success of assisted conception by facilitating embryo implantation.\nObjectives\nTo determine effects of assisted hatching (AH) of embryos derived from assisted conception on live birth and multiple pregnancy rates.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases (from their inception to 27 May 2020), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors identified and independently screened trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AH (mechanical, chemical, or laser disruption of the zona pellucida before embryo replacement) versus no AH that reported live birth or clinical pregnancy data.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed quality assessments and data extraction.\nMain results\nWe included 39 RCTs (7249 women). All reported clinical pregnancy data, including 2486 clinical pregnancies. Only 14 studies reported live birth data, with 834 live birth events. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias. Five trials are currently ongoing.\nWe are uncertain whether assisted hatching improved live birth rates compared to no assisted hatching (odds ratio (OR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.29; 14 RCTs, N = 2849; I² = 20%; low-quality evidence). This analysis suggests that if the live birth rate in women not using assisted hatching is about 28%, the rate in those using assisted hatching will be between 27% and 34%.\nAnalysis of multiple pregnancy rates per woman showed that in women who were randomised to AH compared with women randomised to no AH, there may have been a slight increase in multiple pregnancy rates (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.68; 18 RCTs, N = 4308; I² = 48%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the multiple pregnancy rate in women not using assisted hatching is about 9%, the rate in those using assisted hatching will be between 10% and 14%.\nWhen all of the included studies (39) are pooled, the clinical pregnancy rate in women who underwent AH may improve slightly in comparison to no AH (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 39 RCTs, N = 7249; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence). However, when a random-effects model is used due to high heterogeneity, there may be little to no difference in clinical pregnancy rate (P = 0.04).\nAll 14 RCTs that reported live birth rates also reported clinical pregnancy rates, and analysis of these studies illustrates that AH may make little to no difference in clinical pregnancy rates when compared to no AH (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25; 14 RCTs, N = 2848; I² = 45%).\nWe are uncertain about whether AH affects miscarriage rates due to the quality of the evidence (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.56; 17 RCTs, N = 2810; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis update suggests that we are uncertain of the effects of assisted hatching (AH) on live birth rates. AH may lead to increased risk of multiple pregnancy. The risks of complications associated with multiple pregnancy may be increased without evidence to demonstrate an increase in live birth rate, warranting careful consideration of the routine use of AH for couples undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).\nAH may offer a slightly increased chance of achieving a clinical pregnancy, but data quality was of low grade. We are uncertain about whether AH influences miscarriage rates.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review of RCTs demonstrates that we are uncertain of the effects of assisted hatching on live birth rate when compared to no assisted hatching. Assisted hatching may increase slightly multiple pregnancy rates when compared to no AH. Assisted hatching may improve slightly the chances of clinical pregnancy in women. We are uncertain about the effects of AH on miscarriage.\nOnly studies that report live birth and multiple pregnancy as their primary outcome measures should be performed and funded in the future."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2591 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing, with approximately 15% of pregnant women affected worldwide, varying by country, ethnicity and diagnostic thresholds. There are associated short- and long-term health risks for women and their babies.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of interventions for preventing GDM.\nMethods\nWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (6 August 2019) with key words ‘gestational diabetes’ OR ’GDM’ to identify reviews pre-specifying GDM as an outcome. We included reviews of interventions in women who were pregnant or planning a pregnancy, irrespective of their GDM risk status. Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed quality of evidence using ROBIS and GRADE tools. We assigned interventions to categories with graphic icons to classify the effectiveness of interventions as: clear evidence of benefit or harm (GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a confidence interval (CI) that did not cross the line of no effect); clear evidence of no effect or equivalence (GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a narrow CI crossing the line of no effect); possible benefit or harm (low-quality evidence with a CI that did not cross the line of no effect or GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a wide CI); or unknown benefit or harm (GRADE low-quality evidence with a wide CI or very low-quality evidence).\nMain results\nWe included 11 Cochrane Reviews (71 trials, 23,154 women) with data on GDM. Nine additional reviews pre-specified GDM as an outcome, but did not identify GDM data in included trials. Ten of the 11 reviews were judged to be at low risk of bias and one review at unclear risk of bias. Interventions assessed included diet, exercise, a combination of diet and exercise, dietary supplements, pharmaceuticals, and management of other health problems in pregnancy. The quality of evidence ranged from high to very low.\nDiet\nUnknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm of dietary advice versus standard care, on the risk of GDM: risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.04; 5 trials; 1279 women; very low-quality evidence. There was unknown benefit or harm of a low glycaemic index diet versus a moderate-high glycaemic index diet on the risk of GDM: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.31; 4 trials; 912 women; low-quality evidence.\nExercise\nUnknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm for exercise interventions versus standard antenatal care on the risk of GDM: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.84; 3 trials; 826 women; low-quality evidence.\nDiet and exercise combined\nPossible benefit: combined diet and exercise interventions during pregnancy versus standard care possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 19 trials; 6633 women; moderate-quality evidence.\nDietary supplements\nClear evidence of no effect: omega-3 fatty acid supplementation versus none in pregnancy had no effect on the risk of GDM: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; 12 trials; 5235 women; high-quality evidence.\nPossible benefit: myo-inositol supplementation during pregnancy versus control possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.64; 3 trials; 502 women; low-quality evidence.\nPossible benefit: vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or control in pregnancy possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 4 trials; 446 women; low-quality evidence.\nUnknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm of probiotic with dietary intervention versus placebo with dietary intervention (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 1 trial; 114 women; very low-quality evidence), or probiotic with dietary intervention versus control (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.92; 1 trial; 111 women; very low-quality evidence) on the risk of GDM. There was unknown benefit or harm of vitamin D + calcium supplementation versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.84; 1 trial; 54 women; very low-quality evidence) or vitamin D + calcium + other minerals versus calcium + other minerals (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.73; 1 trial; 1298 women; very low-quality evidence) on the risk of GDM.\nPharmaceutical\nPossible benefit: metformin versus placebo given to obese pregnant women possibly reduced the risk of GDM: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.19; 3 trials; 892 women; moderate-quality evidence.\nUnknown benefit or harm:eight small trials with low- to very low-quality evidence showed unknown benefit or harm for heparin, aspirin, leukocyte immunisation or IgG given to women with a previous stillbirth on the risk of GDM.\nManagement of other health issues\nClear evidence of no effect: universal versus risk based screening of pregnant women for thyroid dysfunction had no effect on the risk of GDM: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25; 1 trial; 4516 women; moderate-quality evidence.\nUnknown benefit or harm: there was unknown benefit or harm of using fractional exhaled nitrogen oxide versus a clinical algorithm to adjust asthma therapy on the risk of GDM: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.77; 1 trial; 210 women; low-quality evidence. There was unknown benefit or harm of pharmacist led multidisciplinary approach to management of maternal asthma versus standard care on the risk of GDM: RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 99.82; 1 trial; 58 women; low-quality evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo interventions to prevent GDM in 11 systematic reviews were of clear benefit or harm. A combination of exercise and diet, supplementation with myo-inositol, supplementation with vitamin D and metformin were of possible benefit in reducing the risk of GDM, but further high-quality evidence is needed. Omega-3-fatty acid supplementation and universal screening for thyroid dysfunction did not alter the risk of GDM. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to establish the effect on the risk of GDM of diet or exercise alone, probiotics, vitamin D with calcium or other vitamins and minerals, interventions in pregnancy after a previous stillbirth, and different asthma management strategies in pregnancy. There is a lack of trials investigating the effect of interventions prior to or between pregnancies on risk of GDM.\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": "Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as high blood glucose levels (hyperglycaemia) first detected during pregnancy. GDM can affect the health of women and their babies.\nDuring pregnancy a woman’s body changes how it processes the nutrients from her food, to ensure that the baby is well nourished. In the first three months the mother has increased sensitivity to insulin. In the second and third trimesters her insulin sensitivity is reduced. Women with GDM have less of an initial increase in sensitivity and their insulin sensitivity is reduced beyond normal later in pregnancy, resulting in the mother developing high blood glucose levels. Her blood levels of fats are also higher than normal, which may contribute to the risk of the baby becoming large for its gestational age."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2592 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital delivery, a fourfold increase in opioid use is reported from 1999 to 2014 (Haight 2018). Heroin crosses the placenta, and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and last updated in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with a psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions alone for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment, and reducing the use of substances.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the following databases to February 2020: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of any pharmacological maintenance treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high dropout rate (30% to 40%), and this was unbalanced between groups.\nMethadone versus buprenorphine:\nThere was probably no evidence of a difference in the dropout rate from treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.20, three studies, 223 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in the use of primary substances between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.68, two studies, 151 participants, low-quality evidence). Birth weight may be higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that reported data MD;-530.00 g, 95%CI -662.78 to -397.22 (one study, 19 particpants) and MD: -215.00 g, 95%CI -238.93 to -191.07 (one study, 131 participants) although the results could not be pooled due to very high heterogeneity (very low-quality of evidence). The third study reported that there was no evidence of a difference. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the APGAR score (MD: 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03, two studies,163 participants, low-quality evidence). Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, may not differ between groups (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to1.63, three studies, 166 participants, low-quality evidence).\nOnly one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the number of mothers with serious adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.83, 175 participants, low-quality evidence) and we found there may be no difference in the numbers of newborns with serious AEs (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.59, 38.49,131 participants, low-quality evidence).\nMethadone versus slow-release morphine:\nThere were no dropouts in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine may be superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants, low-quality evidence).\nIn the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine, no side effects were reported for the mother. In contrast, one child in the methadone group had central apnoea, and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea (low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMethadone and buprenorphine may be similar in efficacy and safety for the treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women and their babies. There is not enough evidence to make conclusions for the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine. Overall, the body of evidence is too small to make firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review found few differences in newborn or maternal outcomes for pregnant, opiate-addicted women who were maintained on methadone, buprenorphine or oral slow-release morphine from a mean gestational age of 23 weeks to delivery.\nComparing methadone with buprenorphine, there is probably little or no difference in the number of women who dropped out of treatment. There may be little or no difference in the use of a primary substance and the number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome between the methadone and buprenorphine groups. We are very uncertain whether newborns with mothers receiving buprenorphine could have a heavier birth weight.\nComparing methadone with oral slow-release morphine, there were no dropouts in the only study included. The use of heroin in the third trimester may be lower with slow-release morphine. However, there may be little or no difference in infant birth weight or duration of neonatal abstinence syndrome.\nThe number of participants in the trials was small and may not be sufficient to draw firm conclusions. All the included studies ended immediately after the baby was born. No severe complications were noted."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2593 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAbout one in five strokes occur during sleep (wake-up stroke). People with wake-up strokes have previously been considered to be ineligible for thrombolytic treatment because the time of stroke onset is unknown. However, recent studies suggest benefit from recanalisation therapies in selected patients.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy versus control in people with acute ischaemic stroke presenting on awakening from sleep.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last search 24 of May 2021). In addition, we searched the following electronic databases in May 2021: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 4 of 12, April 2021) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We searched the Stroke Trials Registry (last search 7 December 2017, as the site is currently inactive). We also screened references lists of relevant trials, contacted trialists, and undertook forward tracking of relevant references.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravenous thrombolytic drugs or endovascular thrombectomy treatments in people with acute ischaemic stroke presenting upon awakening.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We obtained both published and unpublished data for participants with wake-up strokes. We excluded participants with strokes of unknown onset if the symptoms did not begin upon awakening.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials with a total of 980 participants, of which five trials with 775 participants investigated intravenous thrombolytic treatment and two trials with 205 participants investigated endovascular thrombectomy in large vessel occlusion in the anterior intracranial circulation. All trials used advanced imaging for selecting patients to treat.\nFor intravenous thrombolytic treatment, good functional outcome (defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 2) at 90 days follow-up was observed in 66% of participants randomised to thrombolytic treatment and 58% of participants randomised to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.26; P = 0.03; 763 participants, 5 RCTs; high-certainty evidence). Seven per cent of participants randomised to intravenous thrombolytic treatment and 10% of participants randomised to control had died at 90 days follow-up (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.07; P = 0.09; 763 participants, 5 RCTs; high-certainty evidence). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 3% of participants randomised to intravenous thrombolytic treatment and 1% of participants randomised to control (RR 3.47, 95% CI 0.98 to 12.26; P = 0.05; 754 participants, 4 RCTs; high-certainty evidence).\nFor endovascular thrombectomy of large vessel occlusion, good functional outcome at 90 days follow-up was observed in 46% of participants randomised to endovascular thrombectomy and 9% of participants randomised to control (RR 5.12, 95% CI 2.57 to 10.17; P < 0.001; 205 participants, 2 RCTs; high-certainty evidence). Twenty-two per cent of participants randomised to endovascular thrombectomy and 33% of participants randomised to control had died at 90 days follow-up (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.07; P = 0.10; 205 participants, 2 RCTs; high-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn selected patients with acute ischaemic wake-up stroke, both intravenous thrombolytic treatment and endovascular thrombectomy of large vessel occlusion improved functional outcome without increasing the risk of death. However, a possible increased risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage associated with thrombolytic treatment cannot be ruled out. The criteria used for selecting patients to treatment differed between the trials. All studies were relatively small, and six of the seven studies were terminated early. More studies are warranted in order to determine the optimal criteria for selecting patients for treatment.\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 seven trials with a total of 980 participants. Five trials with 775 wake-up stroke participants were randomised to intravenous thrombolytic treatment or to control (either placebo (dummy treatment) or standard medical treatment alone). Two trials with 205 wake-up stroke participants with a blood clot in a large brain artery were randomised to either endovascular mechanical thrombectomy plus standard medical treatment or standard medical treatment alone."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2594 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nKangaroo mother care (KMC), originally defined as skin-to-skin contact between a mother and her newborn, frequent and exclusive or nearly exclusive breastfeeding, and early discharge from hospital, has been proposed as an alternative to conventional neonatal care for low birthweight (LBW) infants.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether evidence is available to support the use of KMC in LBW infants as an alternative to conventional neonatal care before or after the initial period of stabilization with conventional care, and to assess beneficial and adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches in CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), and POPLINE (Population Information Online) databases (all from inception to June 30, 2016), as well as the WHO (World Health Organization) Trial Registration Data Set (up to June 30, 2016). In addition, we searched the web page of the Kangaroo Foundation, conference and symposia proceedings on KMC, and Google Scholar.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials comparing KMC versus conventional neonatal care, or early-onset KMC versus late-onset KMC, in LBW infants.\nData collection and analysis\nData collection and analysis were performed according to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.\nMain results\nTwenty-one studies, including 3042 infants, fulfilled inclusion criteria. Nineteen studies evaluated KMC in LBW infants after stabilization, one evaluated KMC in LBW infants before stabilization, and one compared early-onset KMC with late-onset KMC in relatively stable LBW infants. Sixteen studies evaluated intermittent KMC, and five evaluated continuous KMC.\nKMC versus conventional neonatal care: At discharge or 40 to 41 weeks' postmenstrual age, KMC was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39 to 0.92; eight trials, 1736 infants), nosocomial infection/sepsis (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.54; five trials, 1239 infants), and hypothermia (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.49; nine trials, 989 infants; moderate-quality evidence). At latest follow-up, KMC was associated with a significantly decreased risk of mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95; 12 trials, 2293 infants; moderate-quality evidence) and severe infection/sepsis (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.69; eight trials, 1463 infants; moderate-quality evidence). Moreover, KMC was found to increase weight gain (mean difference [MD] 4.1 g/d, 95% CI 2.3 to 5.9; 11 trials, 1198 infants; moderate-quality evidence), length gain (MD 0.21 cm/week, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; three trials, 377 infants) and head circumference gain (MD 0.14 cm/week, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.22; four trials, 495 infants) at latest follow-up, exclusive breastfeeding at discharge or 40 to 41 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25; six studies, 1453 mothers) and at one to three months' follow-up (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.43; five studies, 600 mothers), any (exclusive or partial) breastfeeding at discharge or at 40 to 41 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.34; 10 studies, 1696 mothers; moderate-quality evidence) and at one to three months' follow-up (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31; nine studies, 1394 mothers; low-quality evidence), and some measures of mother-infant attachment and home environment. No statistically significant differences were found between KMC infants and controls in Griffith quotients for psychomotor development at 12 months’ corrected age (low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis suggested that inclusion of studies with high risk of bias did not affect the general direction of findings nor the size of the treatment effect for main outcomes.\nEarly-onset KMC versus late-onset KMC in relatively stable infants: One trial compared early-onset continuous KMC (within 24 hours post birth) versus late-onset continuous KMC (after 24 hours post birth) in 73 relatively stable LBW infants. Investigators reported no significant differences between the two study groups in mortality, morbidity, severe infection, hypothermia, breastfeeding, and nutritional indicators. Early-onset KMC was associated with a statistically significant reduction in length of hospital stay (MD 0.9 days, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.2).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from this updated review supports the use of KMC in LBW infants as an alternative to conventional neonatal care, mainly in resource-limited settings. Further information is required concerning the effectiveness and safety of early-onset continuous KMC in unstabilized or relatively stabilized LBW infants, as well as long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes and costs of care.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Does kangaroo mother care (KMC) reduce morbidity and mortality in low birthweight (LBW) infants?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2595 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAntipsychotic (neuroleptic) medication is used extensively to treat people with chronic mental illnesses. Its use, however, is associated with adverse effects, including movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia (TD) – a problem often seen as repetitive involuntary movements around the mouth and face. Vitamin E has been proposed as a treatment to prevent or decrease TD.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to determine the clinical effects of vitamin E in people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illness who had developed antipsychotic-induced TD.\nThe secondary objectives were:\n1. to examine whether the effect of vitamin E was maintained as duration of follow-up increased;\n2. to test the hypothesis that the use of vitamin E is most effective for those with early onset TD (less than five years)\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2015 and April 2017), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of trials for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included reports if they were controlled trials dealing with people with antipsychotic-induced TD and schizophrenia who remained on their antipsychotic medication and had been randomly allocated to either vitamin E or to a placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assumed that people who left early had no improvement. We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.\nMain results\nThe review now includes 13 poorly reported randomised trials (total 478 people), all participants were adults with chronic psychiatric disorders, mostly schizophrenia, and antipsychotic-induced TD. There was no clear difference between vitamin E and placebo for the outcome of TD: not improved to a clinically important extent (6 RCTs, N = 264, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.01, low-quality evidence). However, people allocated to placebo may show more deterioration of their symptoms compared with those given vitamin E (5 RCTs, N = 85, RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.76, low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of any adverse effects (9 RCTs, N = 205, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.15, very low-quality evidence), extrapyramidal adverse effects (1 RCT, N = 104, MD 1.10, 95% CI -1.02 to 3.22, very low-quality evidence), or acceptability of treatment (measured by participants leaving the study early) (medium term, 8 RCTs, N = 232, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.80, very low-quality evidence). No trials reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life, outcomes designated important to patients. There is no trial-based information regarding the effect of vitamin E for those with early onset of TD.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSmall trials of limited quality suggest that vitamin E may protect against deterioration of TD. There is no evidence that vitamin E improves symptoms of this problematic and disfiguring condition once established. New and better trials are indicated in this under-researched area, and, of the many adjunctive treatments that have been given for TD, vitamin E would be a good choice for further evaluation.\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": "Available evidence is weak, limited and poor and we are unable to make any conclusions regarding the use of Vitamin E for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Well-designed trials involving a large number of participants investigating the effects of vitamin E over long periods of time are needed to determine whether this vitamin provides an effective treatment option for tardive dyskinesia.\nThis plain language summary was adapted by the review authors from a summary originally written by Ben Gray, Senior Peer Researcher, McPin Foundation (http://mcpin.org/)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2596 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDeep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality.\nMeta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nFor oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our confidence in the evidence is generally moderate because few people overall experienced the outcomes. The evidence answered the question we addressed directly and the results of the studies were consistent. However, further studies are needed to explore how one direct oral anticoagulant compares with another. Future well-designed studies may also provide important evidence for post-thrombotic syndrome (a condition that can happen to people who have had a DVT of the leg, causing chronic pain, swelling and other symptoms in the leg) and quality of life."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2597 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSchizophrenia is a psychiatric disorder which involves distortions in thought and perception, blunted affect, and behavioural disturbances. The longer psychosis goes unnoticed and untreated, the more severe the repercussions for relapse and recovery. There is some evidence that early intervention services can help, and diagnostic techniques that could contribute to early intervention may offer clinical utility in these situations. The index test being evaluated in this review is the structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analysis technique known as voxel-based morphometry (VBM) that estimates the distribution of grey matter tissue volume across several brain regions. This review is an exploratory examination of the diagnostic ‘potential’ of VBM for use as an additional tool in the clinical examination of patients with first episode psychosis to establish whether an individual will progress on to developing schizophrenia as opposed to other types of psychosis.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether VBM applied to the brain can be used to differentiate schizophrenia from other types of psychosis in participants who have received a clinical diagnosis of first episode psychosis.\nSearch methods\nIn December 2013, we updated a previous search (May 2012) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo using OvidSP.\nSelection criteria\nWe included retrospective and prospective studies that consecutively or randomly selected adolescent and adult participants (< 45 years) with a first episode of psychosis; and that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of VBM for differentiating schizophrenia from other psychoses compared with a clinical diagnosis made by a qualified mental health professional, with or without the use of standard operational criteria or symptom checklists. We excluded studies in children, and in adult participants with organic brain disorders or who were at high risk for schizophrenia, such as people with a genetic predisposition.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened all references for inclusion. We assessed the quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 instrument. Due to a lack of data, we were not able to extract 2 x 2 data tables for each study nor undertake any meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe included four studies with a total of 275 participants with first episode psychosis. VBM was not used to diagnose schizophrenia in any of the studies, instead VBM was used to quantify the magnitude of differences in grey matter volume. Therefore, none of the included studies reported data that could be used in the analysis, and we summarised the findings narratively for each study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence to currently support diagnosing schizophrenia (as opposed to other psychotic disorders) using the pattern of brain changes seen in VBM studies in patients with first episode psychosis. VBM has the potential to discriminate between diagnostic categories but the methods to do this reliably are currently in evolution. In addition, the lack of applicability of the use of VBM to clinical practice in the studies to date limits the usefulness of VBM as a diagnostic aid to differentiate schizophrenia from other types of psychotic presentations in people with first episode of psychosis.\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 four studies we identified used VBM on adolescents and adults with first episode psychosis, but VBM was used to describe brain structure and not to make a diagnosis. There is no evidence to support the use of VBM to diagnose schizophrenia in patients with first episode psychosis."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2598 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTelemedicine (TM) is the use of telecommunication systems to deliver health care at a distance. It has the potential to improve patient health outcomes, access to health care and reduce healthcare costs. As TM applications continue to evolve it is important to understand the impact TM might have on patients, healthcare professionals and the organisation of care.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, acceptability and costs of interactive TM as an alternative to, or in addition to, usual care (i.e. face-to-face care, or telephone consultation).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers to June 2013, together with reference checking, citation searching, handsearching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials of interactive TM that involved direct patient-provider interaction and was delivered in addition to, or substituting for, usual care compared with usual care alone, to participants with any clinical condition. We excluded telephone only interventions and wholly automatic self-management TM interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nFor each condition, we pooled outcome data that were sufficiently homogenous using fixed effect meta-analysis. We reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 93 eligible trials (N = 22,047 participants), which evaluated the effectiveness of interactive TM delivered in addition to (32% of studies), as an alternative to (57% of studies), or partly substituted for usual care (11%) as compared to usual care alone.\nThe included studies recruited patients with the following clinical conditions: cardiovascular disease (36), diabetes (21), respiratory conditions (9), mental health or substance abuse conditions (7), conditions requiring a specialist consultation (6), co morbidities (3), urogenital conditions (3), neurological injuries and conditions (2), gastrointestinal conditions (2), neonatal conditions requiring specialist care (2), solid organ transplantation (1), and cancer (1).\nTelemedicine provided remote monitoring (55 studies), or real-time video-conferencing (38 studies), which was used either alone or in combination. The main TM function varied depending on clinical condition, but fell typically into one of the following six categories, with some overlap: i) monitoring of a chronic condition to detect early signs of deterioration and prompt treatment and advice, (41); ii) provision of treatment or rehabilitation (12), for example the delivery of cognitive behavioural therapy, or incontinence training; iii) education and advice for self-management (23), for example nurses delivering education to patients with diabetes or providing support to parents of very low birth weight infants or to patients with home parenteral nutrition; iv) specialist consultations for diagnosis and treatment decisions (8), v) real-time assessment of clinical status, for example post-operative assessment after minor operation or follow-up after solid organ transplantation (8) vi), screening, for angina (1).\nThe type of data transmitted by the patient, the frequency of data transfer, (e.g. telephone, e-mail, SMS) and frequency of interactions between patient and healthcare provider varied across studies, as did the type of healthcare provider/s and healthcare system involved in delivering the intervention.\nWe found no difference between groups for all-cause mortality for patients with heart failure (16 studies; N = 5239; RR:0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.03, P = 0.12; I2 = 44%) (moderate to high certainty of evidence) at a median of six months follow-up. Admissions to hospital (11 studies; N = 4529) ranged from a decrease of 64% to an increase of 60% at median eight months follow-up (moderate certainty of evidence). We found some evidence of improved quality of life (five studies; N = 482; MD:-4.39, 95% CI -7.94 to -0.83; P < 0.02; I2 = 0%) (moderate certainty of evidence) for those allocated to TM as compared with usual care at a median three months follow-up. In studies recruiting participants with diabetes (16 studies; N = 2768) we found lower glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c %) levels in those allocated to TM than in controls (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.24; P < 0.00001; I2= 42%, P = 0.04) (high certainty of evidence) at a median of nine months follow-up. We found some evidence for a decrease in LDL (four studies, N = 1692; MD -12.45, 95% CI -14.23 to -10.68; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) (moderate certainty of evidence), and blood pressure (four studies, N = 1770: MD: SBP:-4.33, 95% CI -5.30 to -3.35, P < 0.00001; I2 = 17%; DBP: -2.75 95% CI -3.28 to -2.22, P < 0.00001; I2 = 45% (moderate certainty evidence), in TM as compared with usual care.\nSeven studies that recruited participants with different mental health and substance abuse problems, reported no differences in the effect of therapy delivered over video-conferencing, as compared to face-to-face delivery. Findings from the other studies were inconsistent; there was some evidence that monitoring via TM improved blood pressure control in participants with hypertension, and a few studies reported improved symptom scores for those with a respiratory condition. Studies recruiting participants requiring mental health services and those requiring specialist consultation for a dermatological condition reported no differences between groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings in our review indicate that the use of TM in the management of heart failure appears to lead to similar health outcomes as face-to-face or telephone delivery of care; there is evidence that TM can improve the control of blood glucose in those with diabetes. The cost to a health service, and acceptability by patients and healthcare professionals, is not clear due to limited data reported for these outcomes. The effectiveness of TM may depend on a number of different factors, including those related to the study population e.g. the severity of the condition and the disease trajectory of the participants, the function of the intervention e.g., if it is used for monitoring a chronic condition, or to provide access to diagnostic services, as well as the healthcare provider and healthcare system involved in delivering the intervention.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We assessed the effectiveness, acceptability, and costs of interactive telemedicine, delivered in addition to, or as an alternative to, usual care as compared to usual care alone."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2599 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIncreased physical activity has been recommended as an important lifestyle modification for the prevention and control of hypertension. Walking is a low-cost form of physical activity and one which most people can do. Studies testing the effect of walking on blood pressure have revealed inconsistent findings.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of walking as a physical activity intervention on blood pressure and heart rate.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the following Chinese databases up to May 2020: Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature System; National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertation in Taiwan; China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Journals, Theses & Dissertations; and Wanfang Medical Online. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of participants, aged 16 years and over, which evaluated the effects of a walking intervention compared to non-intervention control on blood pressure and heart rate were included.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Where data were not available in the published reports, we contacted authors. Pooled results for blood pressure and heart rate were presented as mean differences (MDs) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We undertook subgroup analyses for age and sex. We undertook sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of sample size on our findings.\nMain results\nA total of 73 trials met our inclusion criteria. These 73 trials included 5763 participants and were undertaken in 22 countries. Participants were aged from 16 to 84 years and there were approximately 1.5 times as many females as males. The characteristics of walking interventions in the included studies were as follows: the majority of walking interventions was at home/community (n = 50) but supervised (n = 36 out of 47 reported the information of supervision); the average intervention length was 15 weeks, average walking time per week was 153 minutes and the majority of walking intensity was moderate. Many studies were at risk of selection bias and performance bias.\nPrimary outcome\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -4.11 mmHg, 95% CI -5.22 to -3.01; 73 studies, n = 5060). We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces SBP in participants aged 40 years and under (MD -4.41 mmHg, 95% CI -6.17 to -2.65; 14 studies, n = 491), and low-certainty evidence that walking reduces SBP in participants aged 41 to 60 years (MD -3.79 mmHg, 95% CI -5.64 to -1.94, P < 0.001; 35 studies, n = 1959), and those aged 60 years of over (MD -4.30 mmHg, 95% CI -6.17 to -2.44, 24 studies, n = 2610). We also found low certainty-evidence suggesting that walking reduces SBP in both females (MD -5.65 mmHg, 95% CI -7.89 to -3.41; 22 studies, n = 1149) and males (MD -4.64 mmHg, 95% CI -8.69 to -0.59; 6 studies, n = 203).\nSecondary outcomes\nWe found low-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD -1.79 mmHg, 95% CI -2.51 to -1.07; 69 studies, n = 4711) and heart rate (MD -2.76 beats per minute (bpm), 95% CI -4.57 to -0.95; 26 studies, n = 1747). We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces DBP for participants aged 40 years and under (MD -3.01 mmHg, 95% CI -4.44 to -1.58; 14 studies, n = 491) and low-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces DBP for participants aged 41 to 60 years (MD -1.74 mmHg, 95% CI -2.95 to -0.52; 32 studies, n = 1730) and those aged 60 years and over (MD -1.33 mmHg, 95% CI -2.40 to -0.26; 23 studies, n = 2490). We found moderate-certainty evidence that suggests walking reduces DBP for males (MD -2.54 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to -0.24; 6 studies, n = 203) and low-certainty evidence that walking reduces DBP for females (MD -2.69 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.23; 20 studies, n = 1000). Only 21 included studies reported adverse events. Of these 21 studies, 16 reported no adverse events, the remaining five studies reported eight adverse events, with knee injury being reported five times.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests that walking probably reduces SBP. Moderate- or low-certainty evidence suggests that walking may reduce SBP for all ages and both sexes. Low-certainty evidence suggests that walking may reduce DBP and heart rate. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence suggests walking may reduce DBP and heart rate for all ages and both sexes.\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 73 trials involving 5763 participants from 22 countries, published up to March 2020. These trials included both males and females; with an age range from 16 to 84 years with approximately half aged over 60 (51%) and 39% aged 41 to 60 years with various health conditions. The types of walking activity varied, including home-, community-, school-, or gym-based walking several times a week with different intensity levels."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2600 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIdiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic corticosteroids are widely used, however their value remains unclear. Intratympanic injections of corticosteroids have become increasingly common in the treatment of ISSNHL.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of intratympanic corticosteroids in people with ISSNHL.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2021, Issue 9); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials (search date 23 September 2021).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with ISSNHL and follow-up of over a week. Intratympanic corticosteroids were given as primary or secondary treatment (after failure of systemic therapy).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods, including GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was change in hearing threshold with pure tone audiometry. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people whose hearing improved, final hearing threshold, speech audiometry, frequency-specific hearing changes and adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included 30 studies, comprising 2133 analysed participants. Some studies had more than two treatment arms and were therefore relevant to several comparisons. Studies investigated intratympanic corticosteroids as either primary (initial) therapy or secondary (rescue) therapy after failure of initial treatment.\n1. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus systemic corticosteroids as primary therapy\nWe identified 16 studies (1108 participants). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no improvement in the change in hearing threshold (mean difference (MD) -5.93 dB better, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.61 to -4.26; 10 studies; 701 participants; low-certainty). We found little to no difference in the proportion of participants whose hearing was improved (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.12; 14 studies; 972 participants; moderate-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no difference in the final hearing threshold (MD -3.31 dB, 95% CI -6.16 to -0.47; 7 studies; 516 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may increase the number of people who experience vertigo or dizziness (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.54; 1 study; 250 participants; low-certainty) and probably increases the number of people with ear pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 6.22 to 39.49; 2 studies; 289 participants; moderate-certainty). It also resulted in persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 3.9%; 3 studies; 359 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo/dizziness at the time of injection (1% to 21%, 3 studies; 197 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (10.5% to 27.1%; 2 studies; 289 participants; low-certainty).\n2. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as primary therapy\nWe identified 10 studies (788 participants). Combined therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -8.55 dB better, 95% CI -12.48 to -4.61; 6 studies; 435 participants; low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain as to whether combined therapy changes the proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 10 studies; 788 participants; very low-certainty). Combined therapy may result in slightly lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds but the evidence is very uncertain, and it is not clear whether the change would be important to patients (MD -9.11 dB, 95% CI -16.56 to -1.67; 3 studies; 194 participants; very low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received combined therapy. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 5.5%; 5 studies; 474 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 0% to 8.1%; 4 studies; 341 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (13.5%; 1 study; 73 participants; very low-certainty).\n3. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus no treatment or placebo as secondary therapy\nWe identified seven studies (279 participants). Intratympanic therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -9.07 dB better, 95% CI -11.47 to -6.66; 7 studies; 280 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 5.55, 95% CI 2.89 to 10.68; 6 studies; 232 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds (MD -11.09 dB, 95% CI -17.46 to -4.72; 5 studies; 203 participants; low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received intratympanic injection. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 4.2%; 5 studies; 185 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 6.7% to 33%; 3 studies; 128 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (0%; 1 study; 44 participants; very low-certainty).\n4. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as secondary therapy\nWe identified one study with 76 participants. Change in hearing threshold was not reported. Combined therapy may result in a higher proportion with hearing improvement, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.55; very low-certainty). Adverse effects were poorly reported with only data for persistent tympanic membrane perforation (rate 8.1%, very low-certainty).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost of the evidence in this review is low- or very low-certainty, therefore it is likely that further studies may change our conclusions.\nFor primary therapy, intratympanic corticosteroids may have little or no effect compared with systemic corticosteroids. There may be a slight benefit from combined treatment when compared with systemic treatment alone, but the evidence is uncertain.\nFor secondary therapy, there is low-certainty evidence that intratympanic corticosteroids, when compared to no treatment or placebo, may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved, but may only have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold. It is very uncertain whether there is additional benefit from combined treatment over systemic steroids alone.\nAlthough adverse effects were poorly reported, the different risk profiles of intratympanic treatment (including tympanic membrane perforation, pain and dizziness/vertigo) and systemic treatment (for example, blood glucose problems) should be considered when selecting appropriate treatment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence in this Cochrane Review is current to 23 September 2021."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2601 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAbout 10% of reproductive-aged women suffer from endometriosis which is a costly chronic disease that causes pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopy is the 'gold standard' diagnostic test for endometriosis, but it is expensive and carries surgical risks. Currently, there are no simple non-invasive or minimally-invasive tests available in clinical practice that accurately diagnoses endometriosis.\nObjectives\n1. To provide summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of urinary biomarkers for the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis compared to surgical diagnosis as a reference standard.\n2. To assess the diagnostic utility of biomarkers that could differentiate ovarian endometrioma from other ovarian masses.\nUrinary biomarkers were evaluated as replacement tests for surgical diagnosis and as triage tests to inform decisions to undertake surgery for endometriosis.\nSearch methods\nThe searches were not restricted to particular study design, language or publication dates. We searched the following databases to 20 April - 31 July 2015: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS, OAIster, TRIP and ClinicalTrials.gov (trial register). MEDION, DARE, and PubMed were also searched to identify reviews and guidelines as reference sources of potentially relevant studies. Recently published papers not yet indexed in the major databases were also sought. The search strategy incorporated words in the title, abstract, text words across the record and the medical subject headings (MeSH) and was modified for each database.\nSelection criteria\nPublished peer-reviewed, randomised controlled or cross-sectional studies of any size were considered, which included prospectively collected samples from any population of reproductive-aged women suspected of having one or more of the following target conditions: ovarian, peritoneal or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). We included studies comparing the diagnostic test accuracy of one or more urinary biomarkers with surgical visualisation of endometriotic lesions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently collected and performed a quality assessment of the data from each study. For each diagnostic test, the data were classified as positive or negative for the surgical detection of endometriosis and sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated. If two or more tests were evaluated in the same cohort, each was considered as a separate data set. The bivariate model was used to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity whenever sufficient data sets were available. The predetermined criteria for a clinically useful urine test to replace diagnostic surgery was one with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 79% to detect endometriosis. The criteria for triage tests were set at sensitivity of equal or greater than 95% and specificity of equal or greater than 50%, which in case of negative result rules out the diagnosis (SnOUT test) or sensitivity of equal or greater than 50% with specificity of equal or greater than 95%, which in case of positive result rules the diagnosis in (SpIN test).\nMain results\nWe included eight studies involving 646 participants, most of which were of poor methodological quality. The urinary biomarkers were evaluated either in a specific phase of menstrual cycle or irrespective of the cycle phase. Five studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of four urinary biomarkers for endometriosis, including three biomarkers distinguishing women with and without endometriosis (enolase 1 (NNE); vitamin D binding protein (VDBP); and urinary peptide profiling); and one biomarker (cytokeratin 19 (CK 19)) showing no significant difference between the two groups. All of these biomarkers were assessed in small individual studies and could not be statistically evaluated in a meaningful way. None of the biomarkers met the criteria for a replacement test or a triage test. Three studies evaluated three biomarkers that did not differentiate women with endometriosis from disease-free controls.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence to recommend any urinary biomarker for use as a replacement or triage test in clinical practice for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Several urinary biomarkers may have diagnostic potential, but require further evaluation before being introduced into routine clinical practice. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis, and diagnosis of endometriosis using urinary biomarkers should only be undertaken in a research setting.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence included in this review is current to July 2015. We included eight studies involving 646 participants. All studies evaluated reproductive-aged women who were undertaking diagnostic surgery to investigate symptoms of endometriosis or for other indications. Five studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of four urinary biomarkers, including four biomarkers that were expressed differently in women with and without endometriosis and one showing no difference between the two groups. Three other studies just identified three biomarkers that did not distinguish the two groups."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2602 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNasal polyps cause nasal obstruction, discharge and reduction in or loss of sense of smell, but their aetiology is unknown. The management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, aimed at improving these symptoms, includes both surgical and medical treatments, but there is no universally accepted management protocol.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of endonasal/endoscopic surgery versus medical treatment in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 20 February 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of any surgical intervention (e.g. polypectomy, endoscopic sinus surgery) versus any medical treatment (e.g. intranasal and/or systemic steroids), including placebo, in adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the studies and the selective (incomplete) outcome reporting by the studies.\nMain results\nFour studies (231 participants randomised) are included in the review. No studies were at low risk of bias. The studies compared different types of surgery versus various types and doses of systemic and topical steroids and antibiotics. There were three comparison pairs: (1) endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) versus systemic steroids (one study, n = 109), (2) polypectomy versus systemic steroids (two studies, n = 87); (3) ESS plus topical steroid versus antibiotics plus high-dose topical steroid (one study, n = 35). All participants also received topical steroids but doses and types were the same between the treatment arms of each study, except for the study using antibiotics. In that study, the medical treatment arm had higher doses than the surgical arm. In two of the studies, the authors failed to report the outcomes of interest. Although there were important differences in the types of treatments and comparisons used in these studies, the results were similar.\nPrimary outcomes: symptom scores and quality of life scores\nThere were no important differences between groups in either the patient-reported disease-specific symptom scores or the health-related quality of life scores. Two studies (one comparing ESS plus topical steroid versus antibiotics plus high-dose topical steroid, the other ESS versus systemic steroids) failed to find a difference in generic health-related quality of life scores. The quality of this evidence is low or very low.\nEndoscopic scores and other secondary outcomes\nTwo studies reported endoscopic scores. One study (ESS versus systemic steroids) reported a large, significant effect size in the surgical group, with a mean difference (MD) in score of -1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.78 to -1.22, n = 95) on a scale of 0 to 3 (0 = no polyposis, 3 = severe polyposis). In the other study (ESS plus topical steroid versus antibiotics plus high-dose topical steroid) no difference was found between the groups (MD 2.3%, 95% CI -17.4% to 12.8%, n = 34). None of the included studies reported recurrence rates. No differences were found for any objective measurements or olfactory tests in those studies in which they were measured.\nComplications\nComplication rates were not reported in all studies, but rates of up to 21% for medical treatment and 14.3% for surgical treatment are described. Epistaxis was the most commonly reported complication with both medical and surgical treatments, with severe complications reported rarely.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence relating to the effectiveness of different types of surgery versus medical treatment for adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is of very low quality. The evidence does not show that one treatment is better than another in terms of patient-reported symptom scores and quality of life measurements. The one positive finding from amongst the several studies examining a number of different comparisons must be treated with appropriate caution, in particular when the clinical significance of the measure is uncertain.\nAs the overall evidence is of very low quality (serious methodological limitations, reporting bias, indirectness and imprecision) and insufficient to draw firm conclusions, further research to investigate this problem, which has significant implications for quality of life and healthcare service usage, is justified.\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 main outcome measures were patient-reported disease-specific symptom scores and health-related quality of life scores, as well as generic health-related quality of life scores. There were no important differences between groups in either the patient-reported disease-specific symptom scores or the health-related quality of life scores. Two studies (one comparing ESS plus topical steroid versus antibiotics plus high-dose topical steroid, the other ESS versus systemic steroids) did not find a difference in general health-related quality of life scores.\nTwo studies reported changes in polyp size (when looked at with an endoscope) using a score. One study (ESS versus systemic steroids) reported a significantly better score in the surgery group than in the steroids group at 12 months. In the other study (ESS plus topical steroid versus antibiotics plus high-dose topical steroid) no difference was found between the groups.\nThere were no reported differences between the different medical and surgical treatment groups in any study for any other objective (clinician-based) measurements. Complication rates were not reported in all studies, but nosebleeds (epistaxis) were the most commonly described complication with both medical and surgical treatment; severe complications were reported rarely in either group."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2603 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExchange blood transfusion (EBT) is a form of whole blood transfusion in which the total blood volume is replaced within a few hours. In perinatal and neonatal medicine, EBT is most often used in the management of severe anaemia or severe hyperbilirubinaemia in the first week of life. Hypocalcaemia, one of the common morbidities associated with EBT, is thought to arise from the chelating effects of the citrate commonly used as an anticoagulant in the donor's blood. This disorder manifests with muscular and nervous irritability and cardiac arrhythmias.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether the use of prophylactic calcium reduces the risk of hypocalcaemia-related morbidities and death among newborn infants receiving EBT.\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 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 29 June 2016), Embase (1980 to 29 June 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 29 June 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised and quasi-randomised trials of prophylactic intravenous calcium in EBT for newborns.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed and extracted data on methods, participants, interventions, and outcomes (mean total and ionised serum calcium before and after EBT and the presence of adverse events such as hypoglycaemia, apnoea, cardiac arrest, and death immediately after EBT). We reported results as means difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) and risk differences (RD) and 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes. We assessed quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool and the GRADE system.\nMain results\nWe found only one quasi-randomised trial with 30 participants that met our inclusion criteria. In the small trial, total and ionised serum calcium levels were measured immediately before and immediately after EBT. All the participants were included in the final analysis and all the important outcomes were reported.\nPrimary outcomes\nThere was one death in each group (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.55; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.18; participants = 30; studies = 1). The study did not report the presence of cardiac arrhythmias within one week of EBT and the number of infants with serum calcium levels (total less than 8 mg/dL (2 mmol/L) or ionised less than 4.4 mg/dL (1.1 mmol/L)).\nPair-wise comparison of EBT with intravenous 10% calcium gluconate versus EBT without intravenous calcium (change from baseline) showed mean total serum calcium was raised in the intervention group compared to the control group (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.11; participants = 30; studies = 1). Very low-quality evidence also indicated an increase in the levels of mean ionised serum calcium in the intervention group compared to the control group (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.11; participants = 30; studies = 1).\nSecondary outcomes\nAdverse reactions to intravenous calcium therapy included cardiac arrest in one neonate in the intervention arm (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 68.26; RD 0.07, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.23; participants = 30; studies = 1). There was apnoea and hypoglycaemia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.55; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.18; participants = 30; studies = 1) in the two neonates who died. Data were not available for other major secondary outcomes such as the number of infants with reduced serum magnesium, reduced parathormone, increased calcitonin, presence of seizures, carpopedal spasm, jitteriness and prolonged QTc interval on electrocardiography within one week of EBT.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low-quality data from one quasi-randomised controlled trial suggested that the mean serum total and ionised calcium increased in the study group but decreased in the control group immediately after EBT. However, the mean values of total and ionised calcium in both arms of studies remained within international reference ranges. Unfortunately, data were not available to assess the trend of total and ionised serum calcium to the end of the first week after EBT. Therefore, due to the very low quality of evidence available, it is difficult to support or reject the continual use of prophylactic intravenous calcium in newborn infants receiving EBT. Researchers are encouraged to conduct more robustly designed trials with larger numbers of participants, and particularly, addressing the pattern of differences based on gestational age of participants, type of anticoagulant used, and the volume of blood used.\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 only one poorly designed study for inclusion."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2604 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization recommends routine vitamin A supplementation during pregnancy or lactation in areas with endemic vitamin A deficiency (where night blindness occurs), based on the expectation that supplementation will improve maternal and newborn outcomes including mortality, morbidity and prevention of anaemia or infection.\nObjectives\nTo review the effects of supplementation of vitamin A, or one of its derivatives, during pregnancy, alone or in combination with other vitamins and micronutrients, on maternal and newborn clinical outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised trials, including cluster-randomised trials, evaluating the effect of vitamin A supplementation in pregnant women.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe reviewed 106 reports of 35 trials, published between 1931 and 2015. We included 19 trials including over 310,000 women, excluded 15 trials and one is ongoing. Overall, seven trials were judged to be of low risk of bias, three were high risk of bias and for nine it was unclear.\n1) Vitamin A alone versus placebo or no treatment\nOverall, when trial results are pooled, vitamin A supplementation does not affect the risk of maternal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.20; four trials Ghana, Nepal, Bangladesh, UK, high quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; one study, high quality evidence), neonatal mortality, stillbirth, neonatal anaemia, preterm birth (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.01, five studies, high quality evidence), or the risk of having a low birthweight baby.\nVitamin A supplementation reduces the risk of maternal night blindness (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.98; two trials). There is evidence that vitamin A supplements may reduce maternal clinical infection (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.99, five trials; South Africa, Nepal, Indonesia, Tanzania, UK, low quality evidence) and maternal anaemia (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.94; three studies, moderate quality evidence).\n2) Vitamin A alone versus micronutrient supplements without vitamin A\nVitamin A alone compared to micronutrient supplements without vitamin A does not decrease maternal clinical infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18, two trials, 591 women). No other primary or secondary outcomes were reported\n3) Vitamin A with other micronutrients versus micronutrient supplements without vitamin A\nVitamin A supplementation (with other micronutrients) does not decrease perinatal mortality (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.69; one study, low quality evidence), maternal anaemia (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; three studies, low quality evidence), maternal clinical infection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13; I² = 45%, two studies, low quality evidence) or preterm birth (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.93; one study, low quality evidence).\nIn HIV-positive women vitamin A supplementation given with other micronutrients was associated with fewer low birthweight babies (< 2.5 kg) in the supplemented group in one study (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96; one study, 594 women).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe pooled results of three large trials in Nepal, Ghana and Bangladesh (with over 153,500 women) do not currently suggest a role for antenatal vitamin A supplementation to reduce maternal or perinatal mortality. However, the populations studied were probably different with regard to baseline vitamin A status and there were problems with follow-up of women. There is good evidence that antenatal vitamin A supplementation reduces maternal night blindness, maternal anaemia for women who live in areas where vitamin A deficiency is common or who are HIV-positive. In addition the available evidence suggests a reduction in maternal infection, but these data are not of a high quality.\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": "Taking vitamin A supplements during pregnancy does not help to prevent maternal deaths (related to pregnancy) or perinatal or newborn baby deaths. Taking vitamin A supplements during pregnancy does not help to prevent other problems that can occur such as stillbirth, preterm birth, low birthweight of babies or newborn babies with anaemia. However, the risk of maternal anaemia, maternal infection and maternal night blindness is reduced."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2605 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTotal thyroidectomy (TT) and subtotal thyroidectomy (ST) are worldwide treatment options for multinodular non-toxic goitre in adults. Near TT, defined as a postoperative thyroid remnant less than 1 mL, is supposed to be a similarly effective but safer option than TT. ST has been shown to be marginally safer than TT, but it may leave an undetected thyroid cancer in place.\nObjectives\nThe objective was to assess the effects of total or near-total thyroidectomy compared to subtotal thyroidectomy for multinodular non-toxic goitre.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, as well as the ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 18 June 2015 for all databases. No language restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently scanned the abstract, title or both sections of every record retrieved to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on thyroidectomy for multinodular non-toxic goitre for further assessment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data, assessed studies for risk of bias and evaluated overall study quality utilising the GRADE instrument. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. A random-effects model was used for pooling data.\nMain results\nWe examined 1430 records, scrutinized 14 full-text publications and included four RCTs. Altogether 1305 participants entered the four trials, 543 participants were randomised to TT and 762 participants to ST. A total of 98% and 97% of participants finished the trials in the TT and ST groups, respectively. Two trials had a duration of follow-up between 12 and 39 months and two trials a follow-up of 5 and 10 years, respectively. Risk of bias across studies was mainly unknown for selection, performance and detection bias. Attrition bias was generally low and reporting bias high for some outcomes. In the short-term postoperative period no deaths were reported for both TT and ST groups. However, longer-term data on all-cause mortality were not reported (1284 participants; 4 trials; moderate quality evidence). Goiter recurrence was lower in the TT group compared to ST. Goiters recurred in 0.2% (1/425) of the TT group compared to 8.4% (53/632) of the ST group (OR 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.21); P < 0.0001; 1057 participants; 3 trials; moderate quality evidence). Re-intervention due to goitre recurrence was lower in the TT group compared to ST. Re-intervention was necessary in 0.5% (1/191) of TT patients compared to 0.8% (3/379)of ST patients (OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.07 to 6.38); P = 0.72; 570 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). The incidence of permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was lower for ST compared with TT. Permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy occurred in 0.8% (6/741) of ST patients compared to 0.7% (4/543) of TT patients (OR 1.28, (95% CI 0.38 to 4.36); P = 0.69; 1275 participants; 4 trials; low quality evidence). The incidence of permanent hypoparathyroidism was lower for ST compared with TT. Permanent hypoparathyroidism occurred in 0.1% (1/741) of ST patients compared to 0.6% (3/543) of TT patients (OR 3.09 (95% CI 0.45 to 21.36); P = 0.25; 1275 participants: 4 trials; low quality evidence). The incidence of thyroid cancer was lower for ST compared with TT. Thyroid cancer occurred in 6.1% (41/669) of ST patients compared to 7.3% (34/465)of TT patients (OR 1.32 (95% CI 0.81 to 2.15); P = 0.27; 1134 participants; 3 trials; low quality evidence). No data on health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects were reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe body of evidence on TT compared with ST is limited. Goiter recurrence is reduced following TT. The effects on other key outcomes such as re-interventions due to goitre recurrence, adverse events and thyroid cancer incidence are uncertain. New long-term RCTs with additional data such as surgeons level of experience, treatment volume of surgical centres and details on techniques used are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In the short-term period after surgery no deaths were reported for both total thyroidectomy and subtotal thyroidectomy groups, however longer-term data on all-cause mortality were not reported. Goitre recurrence was lower for total thyroidectomy compared to subtotal thyroidectomy: the risk for goitre recurrence was 84 per 1000 trial participants for subtotal thyroidectomy and 5 per 1000 participants (with a possible range of 1 to 19) for total thyroidectomy. There was no clear benefit or harm of either surgical technique for re-operations because of goitre recurrence, side effects like permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy or development of thyroid cancer. No data on health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects were reported in the included trials."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2606 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe role of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is controversial. While some trials have shown distinct advantages of LLLT over placebo and some other non-surgical treatments, other trials have not.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of LLLT versus placebo and versus other non-surgical interventions in the management of CTS.\nSearch methods\nOn 9 December 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies. We checked the references of primary studies and review articles, and contacted trial authors for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered for inclusion RCTs (irrespective of blinding, publication status or language) comparing LLLT versus placebo or non-surgical treatment for the management of CTS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified trials for inclusion and extracted the data. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model, calculated using Review Manager. For dichotomous data, we reported risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI.\nMain results\nWe identified 22 trials randomising 1153 participants that were eligible for inclusion; nine trials (525 participants, 256 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with placebo, two (150 participants, 75 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with ultrasound, one compared LLLT with placebo and LLLT with ultrasound, two compared LLLT with steroid injection, and one trial each compared LLLT with other non-surgical interventions: fascial manipulation, application of a pulsed magnetic field, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), steroid injection, tendon gliding exercises, and applying a wrist splint combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Three studies compared LLLT as part of multiple interventions. Risk of bias varied across the studies, but was high or unclear in most assessed domains in most studies. Most studies were small, with few events, and effect estimates were generally imprecise and inconsistent; the combination of these factors led us to categorise the quality of evidence for most outcomes as very low or, for a small number, low.\nAt short-term follow-up (less than three months), there was very low-quality evidence for any effect over placebo of LLLT on CTS for the primary outcome of Symptom Severity Score (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsening; MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.06) or Functional Status Scale (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsened disability; MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.09). At short-term (less than three months) follow-up, we are uncertain whether LLLT results in a greater improvement than placebo in visual analogue score (VAS) pain (scale 0 to 10, higher score represents worsening; MD -1.47, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.58) and several aspects of nerve conduction studies (motor nerve latency: higher score represents worsening; MD -0.09 ms, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.03; range 3.1 ms to 4.99 ms; sensory nerve latency: MD -0.10 ms, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.06; range 1.8 ms to 3.9 ms), as the quality of the evidence was very low. When compared with placebo at short-term follow-up, LLLT may slightly improve grip strength (MD 2.58 kg, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.95; range 14.2 kg to 25.23 kg) and finger-pinch strength (MD 0.94 kg, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44; range 4.35 kg to 5.7 kg); however, the quality of evidence was low. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength results reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as previously published.\nWe are uncertain about the effect of LLLT in comparison to ultrasound at short-term follow-up for improvement in VAS pain (MD 2.81, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.40) and motor nerve latency (MD 0.61 ms, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95), as the quality of evidence was very low. When compared with ultrasound at short-term follow-up, LLLT may result in slightly less improvement in finger-pinch strength (MD -0.71 kg, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.49) and motor nerve amplitude (MD -1.90 mV, 95% CI -3.63 to -0.18; range 7.10 mV to 9.70 mV); however, the quality of evidence was low.\nThere was insufficient evidence to assess the long-term benefits of LLLT versus placebo or ultrasound. There was insufficient evidence to show whether LLLT is better or worse in the management of CTS than other non-surgical interventions. For all outcomes reported within these other comparisons, the quality of evidence was very low.\nThere was insufficient evidence to assess adverse events, as only one study reported this outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is of very low quality and we found no data to support any clinical effect of LLLT in treating CTS. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength met previously published MCIDs but these are likely to be overestimates of effect given the small studies and significant risk of bias. There is low or very low-quality evidence to suggest that LLLT is less effective than ultrasound in the management of CTS based on short-term, clinically significant improvements in pain and finger-pinch strength.\nThere is insufficient evidence to support LLLT being better or worse than any other type of non-surgical treatment in the management of CTS. Any further research of LLLT should be definitive, blinded, and of high quality.\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": "CTS is a condition where one of the main nerves in the wrist is compressed. The underlying cause is often unknown. CTS can cause pain, tingling, and numbness in the hand. It is more common as we age and women are more often affected than men. CTS can be treated with surgery, but this is not without risk. For people who do not wish to have surgery, or have a long wait until their operation, other treatments are available. LLLT is one of the non-surgical treatments available to manage CTS. Use of LLLT is controversial, as some research has shown it to be of benefit whereas other research has not."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2607 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStudies consistently show a relationship between social disadvantage and low birthweight. Many countries have programmes offering special assistance to women thought to be at risk for giving birth to a low birthweight infant. These programmes, collectively referred to in this review as additional social support, may include emotional support, which gives a person a feeling of being loved and cared for, tangible/instrumental support, in the form of direct assistance/home visits, and informational support, through the provision of advice, guidance and counselling. The programmes may be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of health professionals, specially trained lay workers, or a combination of lay and professional workers. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and updated in 2010.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to assess the effects of programmes offering additional social support (emotional, instrumental/tangible and informational) compared with routine care, for pregnant women believed to be at high risk for giving birth to babies that are either preterm (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or weigh less than 2500 g, or both, at birth. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the effectiveness of support was mediated by timing of onset (early versus later in pregnancy) or type of provider (healthcare professional or lay person).\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 5 February 2018, and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of additional social support during at-risk pregnancy by either a professional (social worker, midwife, or nurse) or specially trained lay person, compared to routine care. We defined additional social support as some form of emotional support (e.g. caring, empathy, trust), tangible/instrumental support (e.g. transportation to clinic appointments, home visits complemented with phone calls, help with household responsibilities) or informational support (advice and counselling about nutrition, rest, stress management, use of alcohol/recreational drugs).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThis updated review includes a total of 25 studies, with outcome data for 11,246 mothers and babies enrolled in 21 studies. We assessed the overall risk of bias of included studies to be low or unclear, mainly because of limited reporting or uncertainty in how randomisation was generated or concealed (which led us to downgrade the quality of most outcomes to moderate), and the impracticability of blinding participants.\nWhen compared with routine care, programmes offering additional social support for at-risk pregnant women may slightly reduce the number of babies born with a birthweight less than 2500 g from 127 per 1000 to 120 per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.04; 16 studies, n = 11,770; moderate-quality evidence), and the number of babies born with a gestational age less than 37 weeks at birth from 128 per 1000 to 117 per 1000 (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01, 14 studies, n = 12,282; moderate-quality evidence), though the confidence intervals for the pooled effect for both of these outcomes just crossed the line of no effect, suggesting any effect is not large. There may be little or no difference between interventions for stillbirth/neonatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.41; 15 studies, n = 12,091; low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes of moderate quality suggested that there is probably a reduction in caesarean section (from 215 per 1000 to 194 per 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; 15 studies, n = 9550), a reduction in the number of antenatal hospital admissions per participant (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91; 4 studies; n = 787), and a reduction in the mean number of hospitalisation episodes (mean difference −0.05, 95% CI −0.06 to −0.04; 1 study, n = 1525) in the social support group, compared to the controls.\nPostnatal depression and women's satisfaction were reported in different ways in the studies that considered these outcomes and so we could not include data in a meta-analysis. In one study postnatal depression appeared to be slightly lower in the support group in women who screened positively on the Edinbugh Postnatal Depression Scale at eight to 12 weeks postnatally (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.01; 1 study, n = 1008; moderate-quality evidence). In another study, again postnatal depression appeared to be slightly lower in the support group and this was a self-report measure assessed at six weeks postnatally (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; 1 study, n = 458; low-quality evidence). A higher proportion of women in one study reported that their prenatal care was very helpful in the supported group (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.30; 1 study, n = 223; moderate-quality evidence), although in another study results were similar. Another study assessed satisfaction with prenatal care as being \"not good\" in 51 of 945 in the additional support group, compared with 45 of 942 in the usual care group.\nNo studies considered long-term morbidity for the infant. No single outcome was reported in all studies. Subgroup analysis demonstrated consistency of effect when the support was provided by a healthcare professional or a trained lay worker.\nThe descriptions of the additional social support were generally consistent across all studies and included emotional support, tangible support such as home visits, and informational support.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPregnant women need the support of caring family members, friends, and health professionals. While programmes that offer additional social support during pregnancy are unlikely to have a large impact on the proportion of low birthweight babies or birth before 37 weeks' gestation and no impact on stillbirth or neonatal death, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of caesarean birth and antenatal hospital admission.\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": "Babies can have a low birthweight if they are born early, before 37 weeks gestational age, or are born small because the mother was poorly nourished through the pregnancy. Poverty can lead to malnutrition, unhealthy living environments, increased risk of infection, and increased stress in daily life. The social stigma associated with being marginalised in society is also a cause of stress. Babies whose growth has been restricted during pregnancy are more likely to die around the time of birth or to suffer from health problems."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2608 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEstablishing the subgroup analysis of the fallopian tubes (tubes) is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and visualising patency on radiographs, ultrasonography or laparoscopy. Many women were noted to conceive in the first three to six months after tubal flushing, raising the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates. An important adverse event during tubal flushing is intravasation (backflow of contrast medium into the blood or lymphatic vessels),which could lead to embolism although it is asymptomatic in most cases.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) and water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) on subsequent fertility outcomes in women with subfertility.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, reference lists of identified articles and trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with OSCM, WSCM with each other or with no treatment, in women with subfertility.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nFifteen trials involving 3864 women were included in this systematic review. Overall, the quality of evidence varied from very low to moderate: the main limitations were risk of bias, heterogeneity and imprecision.\nOSCM versus no treatment\nFour studies (506 women) were included in this comparison.\nTubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 6.85, 3 RCTs, 204 women, I2 = 0, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 11%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 16% and 46%.\nTubal flushing with OSCM may increase in the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.08 to 6.02, 4 RCTs, 506 women, I2 = 18%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 9%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 17% and 37%.\nNo study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities.\nWSCM versus no treatment\nOnly one study (334 women) was included in this comparison.\nWe are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increase live birth compared to no treatment (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 21%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 15% and 33%.\nWe are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increases clinical pregnancy compared to no treatment (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 27%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 29% and 40%.\nOne case with pelvic infection was reported in the WSCM group and no case with infection in the no treatment group in a one study (334 women). Meta-analysis was not performed due to the rare events.\nNo study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities.\nOSCM versus WSCM\nSix studies (2598 women) were included in this comparison.\nThree studies reported live birth, including two with higher live birth in the OSCM group (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.11, 1119 women; OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.03, 398 women); and one with insufficient evidence of a difference between groups (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40, 533 women). Given the substantial heterogeneity observed (I2 = 86%), meta-analysis was not performed.\nTubal flushing with OSCM probably increased in the odds of intravasation (asymptomatic) compared to tubal flushing with WSCM (OR 5.00, 95% CI 2.25 to 11.12, 4 RCTs, 1912 women, I2 = 0, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of intravasation following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 1%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 2% and 9%.\nTubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.85, 6 RCTs, 2598 women, I2 = 41%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 26%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 28% and 39%.\nWe are uncertain whether tubal flushing with OSCM decreases the odds of infection (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.22, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I2 = 0, very low-quality evidence) or haemorrhage (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.06, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I2 = 0, very low-quality evidence).\nThree neonates with congenital abnormalities were reported in the OSCM group while no congenital abnormality was reported in the WSCM group in one study (1119 women). No meta-analysis was performed due to the rare events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence suggests that compared to no treatment, tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the chance of live birth and clinical pregnancy, while it is uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM improves those outcomes. Compared to tubal flushing with WSCM, OSCM may improve clinical pregnancy while meta-analysis was impossible for live birth due to heterogeneity. Evidence also suggests that OSCM is associated with an increased risk of asymptomatic intravasation. Overall, adverse events, especially long-term adverse events, are poorly reported across studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cochrane authors reviewed the evidence about the effect of using different contrast media during the flushing of fallopian tubes in women with subfertility."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2609 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe modalities of therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) include behavioural and lifestyle modifications, positional therapy, oral appliances, surgery and continuous positive airway pressure therapy (CPAP). Though CPAP has proven efficacy in treating OSA, adherence with CPAP therapy is suboptimal. Positional therapy (to keep people sleeping on their side) is less invasive and therefore expected to have better adherence. This review considered the efficacy of positional therapy compared to CPAP as well as positional therapy against no positional therapy. Devices designed for positional therapy include lumbar or abdominal binders, semi-rigid backpacks, full-length pillows, a tennis ball attached to the back of nightwear, and electrical sensors with alarms that indicate change in position.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy of positional therapy versus CPAP and positional therapy versus inactive control (sham intervention or no positional therapy intervention) in people with OSA.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies from the Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AHMED and PsycINFO), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization trials portal (ICTRP). It also contains results derived from handsearching of respiratory journals and abstract books of major annual meetings. We searched all databases from their inception to September 2018, with no restrictions on language of publication or publication type.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing positional therapy with CPAP and positional therapy with inactive control.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies and extracted the data. We used a random-effects model in the meta-analysis to estimate mean differences and confidence intervals. We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies. The studies randomised 323 participants into two types of interventions. The comparison between positional therapy and CPAP included 72 participants, while the comparison between positional therapy and inactive control included 251 participants. Three studies used supine vibration alarm devices, while five studies used physical positioning like specially designed pillows or semirigid backpacks.\nPositional therapy versus CPAP\nThe three studies included for this comparison were randomised cross-over trials. Two studies found that there was no difference in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores between CPAP and positional therapy. Two studies showed that CPAP produced a greater reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) with a mean difference (MD) of 6.4 events per hour (95% CI 3.00 to 9.79; low-certainty evidence) compared to positional therapy. Subjective adherence, evaluated in one study, was found to be significantly greater with positional therapy (MD 2.5 hours per night, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.59; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn terms of secondary outcomes, one study each reported quality-of-life indices and quality-of-sleep indices with no significant difference between the two groups. One study reported cognitive outcomes using multiple parameters and found no difference between the groups. There were insufficient data to comment on other secondary outcomes like respiratory disturbance index (RDI), and frequency and duration of nocturnal desaturation. None of the studies clearly reported adverse effects.\nPositional therapy versus inactive control\nThree studies of positional therapy versus no intervention were randomised cross-over trials, while two studies were parallel-arm studies. Data from two studies showed that positional therapy significantly improved ESS scores (MD −1.58, 95% CI −2.89 to −0.29; moderate-certainty evidence). Positional therapy showed a reduction in AHI compared with control (MD −7.38 events per hour, 95% CI −10.06 to −4.7; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adherence. The number of participants who continued to use the device at two months was no different between the two groups (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; low-certainty evidence). The same study reported adverse effects, the most common being pain in the back and chest, and sleep disturbance but there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of device discontinuation (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.5 to 3.03; low-certainty evidence). One study each reported quality-of-life indices and quality-of-sleep indices, with no significant difference between the two groups. One study reported cognitive outcome, and found no difference between the groups. There was insufficient evidence to comment on other secondary outcomes (RDI, frequency and duration of nocturnal desaturation).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe review found that CPAP has a greater effect on improving AHI compared with positional therapy in positional OSA, while positional therapy was better than inactive control for improving ESS and AHI. Positional therapy may have better adherence than CPAP. There were no significant differences for other clinically relevant outcomes such as quality of life or cognitive function. All the studies were of short duration. We are unable to comment on the long-term effects of the therapies. This is important, as most of the quality-of-life outcomes will be evident only when the therapies are given over a longer period of time. The certainty of evidence was low to moderate.\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": "1. Positional therapy was less effective than CPAP for reducing Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI). People may use positional therapy for longer than CPAP in the night. In terms of other outcomes no differences were seen.\n2. Positional therapy was shown to be better than inactive control for AHI and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2610 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2011.\nWorldwide, cervical cancer is the fourth commonest cancer affecting women. High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is causative in 99.7% of cases. Other risk factors include smoking, multiple sexual partners, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and immunosuppression. Primary prevention strategies for cervical cancer focus on reducing HPV infection via vaccination and data suggest that this has the potential to prevent nearly 90% of cases in those vaccinated prior to HPV exposure. However, not all countries can afford vaccination programmes and, worryingly, uptake in many countries has been extremely poor. Secondary prevention, through screening programmes, will remain critical to reducing cervical cancer, especially in unvaccinated women or those vaccinated later in adolescence. This includes screening for the detection of pre-cancerous cells, as well as high-risk HPV.\nIn the UK, since the introduction of the Cervical Screening Programme in 1988, the associated mortality rate from cervical cancer has fallen. However, worldwide, there is great variation between countries in both coverage and uptake of screening. In some countries, national screening programmes are available whereas in others, screening is provided on an opportunistic basis. Additionally, there are differences within countries in uptake dependent on ethnic origin, age, education and socioeconomic status. Thus, understanding and incorporating these factors in screening programmes can increase the uptake of screening. This, together with vaccination, can lead to cervical cancer becoming a rare disease.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical screening.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 6, 2020. MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to June 2020. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical screening.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis using standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nComprehensive literature searches identified 2597 records; of these, 70 met our inclusion criteria, of which 69 trials (257,899 participants) were entered into a meta-analysis. The studies assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, lay health worker involvement, counselling and risk factor assessment. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data.\nOverall, there was moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that invitations appear to be an effective method of increasing uptake compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.96; 141,391 participants; 24 studies). Additional analyses, ranging from low to moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that invitations that were personalised, i.e. personal invitation, GP invitation letter or letter with a fixed appointment, appeared to be more successful. More specifically, there was very low-certainty evidence to support the use of GP invitation letters as compared to other authority sources' invitation letters within two RCTs, one RCT assessing 86 participants (RR 1.69 95% CI 0.75 to 3.82) and another, showing a modest benefit, included over 4000 participants (RR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.05 to 1.21). Low-certainty evidence favoured personalised invitations (telephone call, face-to-face or targeted letters) as compared to standard invitation letters (RR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11 to 1.21; 27,663 participants; 5 studies). There was moderate-certainty evidence to support a letter with a fixed appointment to attend, as compared to a letter with an open invitation to make an appointment (RR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.48 to 1.75; 5742 participants; 5 studies).\nLow-certainty evidence supported the use of educational materials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54; 63,415 participants; 13 studies) and lay health worker involvement (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.65; 4330 participants; 11 studies). Other less widely reported interventions included counselling, risk factor assessment, access to a health promotion nurse, photo comic book, intensive recruitment and message framing. It was difficult to deduce any meaningful conclusions from these interventions due to sparse data and low-certainty evidence. However, having access to a health promotion nurse and attempts at intensive recruitment may have increased uptake.\nOne trial reported an economic outcome and randomised 3124 participants within a national screening programme to either receive the standard screening invitation, which would incur a fee, or an invitation offering screening free of charge. No difference in the uptake at 90 days was found (574/1562 intervention versus 612/1562 control, (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03).\nThe use of HPV self-testing as an alternative to conventional screening may also be effective at increasing uptake and this will be covered in a subsequent review. Secondary outcomes, including cost data, were incompletely documented. The majority of cluster-RCTs did not account for clustering or adequately report the number of clusters in the trial in order to estimate the design effect, so we did not selectively adjust the trials. It is unlikely that reporting of these trials would impact the overall conclusions and robustness of the results. Of the meta-analyses that could be performed, there was considerable statistical heterogeneity, and this should be borne in mind when interpreting these findings. Given this and the low to moderate evidence, further research may change these findings. The risk of bias in the majority of trials was unclear, and a number of trials suffered from methodological problems and inadequate reporting. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of an unclear or high risk of bias with regards to allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and other biases.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. Low-certainty evidence showed lay health worker involvement amongst ethnic minority populations may increase screening coverage, and there was also support for educational interventions, but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies were from developed countries and so the relevance of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is unclear. Overall, the low-certainty evidence that was identified makes it difficult to infer as to which interventions were best, with exception of invitational interventions, where there appeared to be more reliable evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main findings?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Seventy trials were included in this review, of which 69 trials (257,899 women) were entered into a meta-analysis. Invitations, and to a lesser extent, educational materials probably increase the uptake of cervical screening (moderate-certainty evidence). HPV self-testing, as an alternative to Pap smears, may also increase screening coverage. However, self-testing was not covered in this review and will be considered in a subsequent review. Lay health workers used to promote screening to ethnic minority groups may increase screening uptake (low-certainty evidence).\nIt was difficult to deduce any meaningful conclusions for other less widely reported interventions such as counselling, risk factor assessment, access to health promotion nurse, photo comic book, intensive recruitment and message framing, due to sparse data and low-certainty evidence. However, having access to a health promotion nurse and attempts at intensive recruitment may increase uptake."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2611 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of inherited disorders that result in haemoglobin abnormalities and other complications. Injury to the spleen, among other factors, contribute to persons with SCD being particularly susceptible to infection. Infants and very young children are especially vulnerable. The 'Co-operative Study of Sickle Cell Disease' observed an incidence rate for pneumococcal septicaemia of 10 per 100 person-years in children under the age of three years. Vaccines, including customary pneumococcal vaccines, may be of limited use in this age group. Therefore, prophylactic penicillin regimens may be advisable for this population. This is an update of a Cochrane Review which was first published in 2002, and previously updated, most recently in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis against pneumococcus in children with SCD receiving antibiotic prophylaxis compared to those without in relation to:\n1. incidence of Streptococcus pneumoniae infection;\n2. mortality (as reported in the included studies);\n3. drug-related adverse events (as reported in the included studies) to the individual and the community;\n4. the impact of discontinuing at various ages on incidence of infection and mortality.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which is comprised of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and also two clinical trials registries: ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Registry Platform (not in 2020 given access issues relating to Covid-19 pandemic). Additionally, we carried out hand searching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.\nDate of the most recent search: 25 January 2021.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic antibiotics to prevent pneumococcal infection in children with SCD with placebo, no treatment or a comparator drug.\nData collection and analysis\nThe standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane were used. Both authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. The authors used the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nSix trials were identified by the searches, of which three trials were eligible for inclusion. A total of 880 children, who were between three months to five years of age at randomization were included. The included studies were conducted in centres in the USA and in Kingston, Jamaica. In trials that investigated initiation of penicillin on risk of pneumococcal infection, the odds ratio was 0.37 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.86) (two trials, 457 children) (low-certainty evidence), while for withdrawal the odds ratio was 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.09 to 2.71) (one trial, 400 children) (low-certainty evidence). Adverse drug effects were rare and minor. Rates of pneumococcal infection were found to be relatively low in children over the age of five years.\nOverall, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was judged to be low. The results from the risk of bias assessment undertaken identified two domains in which the risk of bias was considered to be high, these were incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) (two trials) and allocation concealment (selection bias) (one trial). Domains considered to have a low risk of bias for all three trials were selective reporting (reporting bias) and blinding (performance and detection bias).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence examined was determined to be of low certainty and suggests that prophylactic penicillin significantly reduces risk of pneumococcal infection in children with homozygous SCD, and is associated with minimal adverse reactions. Further research may help to determine the ideal age to safely withdraw penicillin.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "People living with SCD are especially prone to respiratory and blood infections. These infections are often caused by a germ (bacteria) known as Streptococcus pneumoniae, otherwise known as pneumococcus, which can cause many types of serious illnesses. Individuals with SCD can acquire infections more easily than unaffected persons because their spleen (an organ in the body that filters blood and is vital for the proper functioning of the immune system) does not work correctly, and also because damaged tissue and bone resulting from SCD can harbour bacteria. Infection prevention is therefore one of the major ways to improve the health of persons living with SCD and reduce the risk of death. The highest risk of infection occurs in children under three years of age, but the special vaccines that help to prevent illnesses with S pneumoniae are of limited use in this young population. Therefore, regular antibiotics in addition to these special vaccines are needed to prevent infection. As risk of infection decreases with age, there might be a time when preventative antibiotic treatment can be discontinued. The aim of the review was to determine the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis against pneumococcus in children with SCD."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2612 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAntibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria are associated with prolonged hospital stay and death compared with infections caused by susceptible bacteria. Appropriate antibiotic use in hospitals should ensure effective treatment of patients with infection and reduce unnecessary prescriptions. We updated this systematic review to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients.\nObjectives\nTo estimate the effectiveness and safety of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients and to investigate the effect of two intervention functions: restriction and enablement.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched for additional studies using the bibliographies of included articles and personal files. The last search from which records were evaluated and any studies identified incorporated into the review was January 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS). We included three non-randomised study designs to measure behavioural and clinical outcomes and analyse variation in the effects: non- randomised trials (NRT), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. For this update we also included three additional NRS designs (case control, cohort, and qualitative studies) to identify unintended consequences. Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We defined restriction as 'using rules to reduce the opportunity to engage in the target behaviour (or increase the target behaviour by reducing the opportunity to engage in competing behaviours)'. We defined enablement as 'increasing means/reducing barriers to increase capability or opportunity'. The main comparison was between intervention and no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs and meta-regression of ITS studies. We classified behaviour change functions for all interventions in the review, including those studies in the previously published versions. We analysed dichotomous data with a risk difference (RD). We assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nThis review includes 221 studies (58 RCTs, and 163 NRS). Most studies were from North America (96) or Europe (87). The remaining studies were from Asia (19), South America (8), Australia (8), and the East Asia (3). Although 62% of RCTs were at a high risk of bias, the results for the main review outcomes were similar when we restricted the analysis to studies at low risk of bias.\nMore hospital inpatients were treated according to antibiotic prescribing policy with the intervention compared with no intervention based on 29 RCTs of predominantly enablement interventions (RD 15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14% to 16%; 23,394 participants; high-certainty evidence). This represents an increase from 43% to 58% .There were high levels of heterogeneity of effect size but the direction consistently favoured intervention.\nThe duration of antibiotic treatment decreased by 1.95 days (95% CI 2.22 to 1.67; 14 RCTs; 3318 participants; high-certainty evidence) from 11.0 days. Information from non-randomised studies showed interventions to be associated with improvement in prescribing according to antibiotic policy in routine clinical practice, with 70% of interventions being hospital-wide compared with 31% for RCTs. The risk of death was similar between intervention and control groups (11% in both arms), indicating that antibiotic use can likely be reduced without adversely affecting mortality (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 0%; 28 RCTs; 15,827 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotic stewardship interventions probably reduce length of stay by 1.12 days (95% CI 0.7 to 1.54 days; 15 RCTs; 3834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One RCT and six NRS raised concerns that restrictive interventions may lead to delay in treatment and negative professional culture because of breakdown in communication and trust between infection specialists and clinical teams (low-certainty evidence).\nBoth enablement and restriction were independently associated with increased compliance with antibiotic policies, and enablement enhanced the effect of restrictive interventions (high-certainty evidence). Enabling interventions that included feedback were probably more effective than those that did not (moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere was very low-certainty evidence about the effect of the interventions on reducing Clostridium difficile infections (median -48.6%, interquartile range -80.7% to -19.2%; 7 studies). This was also the case for resistant gram-negative bacteria (median -12.9%, interquartile range -35.3% to 25.2%; 11 studies) and resistant gram-positive bacteria (median -19.3%, interquartile range -50.1% to +23.1%; 9 studies). There was too much variance in microbial outcomes to reliably assess the effect of change in antibiotic use.\nHeterogeneity of intervention effect on prescribing outcomes\nWe analysed effect modifiers in 29 RCTs and 91 ITS studies. Enablement and restriction were independently associated with a larger effect size (high-certainty evidence). Feedback was included in 4 (17%) of 23 RCTs and 20 (47%) of 43 ITS studies of enabling interventions and was associated with greater intervention effect. Enablement was included in 13 (45%) of 29 ITS studies with restrictive interventions and enhanced intervention effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found high-certainty evidence that interventions are effective in increasing compliance with antibiotic policy and reducing duration of antibiotic treatment. Lower use of antibiotics probably does not increase mortality and likely reduces length of stay. Additional trials comparing antibiotic stewardship with no intervention are unlikely to change our conclusions. Enablement consistently increased the effect of interventions, including those with a restrictive component. Although feedback further increased intervention effect, it was used in only a minority of enabling interventions. Interventions were successful in safely reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in hospitals, despite the fact that the majority did not use the most effective behaviour change techniques. Consequently, effective dissemination of our findings could have considerable health service and policy impact. Future research should instead focus on targeting treatment and assessing other measures of patient safety, assess different stewardship interventions, and explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation. More research is required on unintended consequences of restrictive interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Antibiotics are used to treat bacterial infections such as pneumonia. Many bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics over time. Antibiotic resistance is a serious problem for patients and healthcare systems because infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria can lead to higher rates of death and longer hospital stays. Bacterial resistance often occurs because antibiotics are used when they are not needed. Studies have shown that in about half of cases physicians in hospital are not prescribing antibiotics properly.\nWe investigated the effectiveness and safety of interventions to help physicians prescribe antibiotics properly and what techniques of behaviour change could influence the success of the interventions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2613 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.\nObjectives\n• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia\n• To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety\n• To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nA review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.\nMain results\nWe included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%).\nIn this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies).\nAlmost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome.\nAltogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias.\nVomiting within 24 hours postoperatively\nRelative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28).\nRecommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available).\nFrequency of SAEs\nTwenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant.\nFrequency of any AE\nSixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant.\nClass-specific side effects\nFor class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant.\nDirection and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects.\nRecommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron.\nThe results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What were our main results and how reliable are these results?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Compared with placebo treatment, 10 out of 28 single medicines and 29 out of 36 combinations of medicines prevented people from being sick in the first 24 hours after their operation (282 studies). Combinations of antiemetic medicines generally worked better than single medicines given alone. However, aprepitant, casopitant, and fosaprepitant worked as well alone as most combinations of antiemetics. The single medicine that worked best in the ranking of all medicines was fosaprepitant, followed by casopitant, aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, tropisetron, ondansetron, dolasetron, and droperidol.\nWe are confident that aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron prevent people from being sick. We are moderately confident about how well fosaprepitant and droperidol work, but this finding may change when further evidence becomes available. We are uncertain about how well casopitant, tropisetron, and dolasetron work.\nNot all studies looked at serious, life-threatening unwanted effects. We are uncertain how many of these effects were reported when taking an antiemetic medicine and whether serious, life-threatening unwanted effects occur at a similar rate or are reduced compared to placebo (28 studies).\nOf the best medicines with most reliable evidence for preventing being sick, granisetron and ondansetron probably made little to no difference in the occurrence of unwanted effects compared to placebo, whereas dexamethasone and droperidol may cause fewer unwanted effects than placebo. We are uncertain about unwanted effects with aprepitant and ramosetron (61 studies). We found no studies looking at unwanted effects for fosaprepitant.\nWe are less confident about unwanted effects of other antiemetic medicines because we found little reliable evidence about this. Our results for unwanted effects are likely to change when further evidence is available."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2614 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage, but the belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications is based on observational data and expert opinions only.\nAn enema before the rectal surgery to clean the rectum and facilitate the manipulation for the mechanical anastomosis is used for many surgeons. This is analysed separately\nObjectives\nTo determine the security and effectiveness of MBP on morbidity and mortality in colorectal surgery.\nSearch methods\nPublications describing trials of MBP before elective colorectal surgery were sought through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IBECS and The Cochrane Library; by handsearching relevant medical journals and conference proceedings, and through personal communication with colleagues.\nSearches were performed December 1, 2010.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants submitted for elective colorectal surgery. Eligible interventions included any type of MBP compared with no MBP. Primary outcomes included anastomosis leakage - both rectal and colonic - and combined figures. Secondary outcomes included mortality, peritonitis, reoperation, wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, and overall surgical site infections.\nData collection and analysis\nData were independently extracted and checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of randomisation, blinding, type of analysis, and number lost to follow up were recorded. For analysis, the Peto-Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the default (no statistical heterogeneity was observed).\nMain results\nAt this update six trials and a new comparison (Mechanical bowel preparation versus enema) were added. Altogether eighteen trials were analysed, with 5805 participants; 2906 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2899 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery.\nFor the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation Versus No Mechanical Bowel Preparation results were:\n1. Anastomotic leakage for low anterior resection: 8.8% (38/431) of Group A, compared with 10.3% (43/415) of Group B; Peto OR 0.88 [0.55, 1.40].\n2. Anastomotic leakage for colonic surgery: 3.0% (47/1559) of Group A, compared with 3.5% (56/1588) of Group B; Peto OR 0.85 [0.58, 1.26].\n3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (101/2275) of Group A, compared with 4.5% (103/2258) of Group B; Peto OR 0.99 [0.74, 1.31].\n4. Wound infection: 9.6% (223/2305) of Group A, compared with 8.5% (196/2290) of Group B; Peto OR 1.16 [0.95, 1.42].\nSensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results.\nFor the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation (A) Versus Rectal Enema (B) results were:\n1. Anastomotic leakage after rectal surgery: 7.4% (8/107) of Group A, compared with 7.9% (7/88) of Group B; Peto OR 0.93 [0.34, 2.52].\n2. Anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery: 4.0% (11/269) of Group A, compared with 2.0% (6/299) of Group B; Peto OR 2.15 [0.79, 5.84].\n3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (27/601) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (21/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.32 [0.74, 2.36].\n4. Wound infection: 9.9% (60/601) of Group A, compared with 8.0% (49/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 [0.85, 1.88].\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the inclusion of more studies with a total of 5805 participants, there is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation, nor the use of rectal enemas. In colonic surgery the bowel cleansing can be safely omitted and induces no lower complication rate. The few studies focused in rectal surgery suggested that mechanical bowel preparation could be used selectively, even though no significant effect was found. Further research on patients submitted for elective rectal surgery, below the peritoneal verge, in whom bowel continuity is restored, and studies with patients submitted to laparoscopic surgeries are still warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Comparison 1\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Comparison 1) and mechanical bowel preparation with rectal enema (Comparison 2) in patients submitted to elective colorectal surgery. Five new trials have been included in this third update of the review, bringing the total number of included trials to 18 (5805 participants). Analysis of these 18 trials showed no statistically significant differences in how well the three groups of patients (mechanical bowel preparation group, no preparation group and rectal enemas) did after surgery in terms of leakage at the surgical seam of the bowel ends, mortality rates, peritonitis, need for reoperation, wound infection, and other non-abdominal complications. Consequently, there is no evidence that mechanical bowel preparation improves the outcome for patients. Further research on mechanical bowel preparation or enemas versus no preparation in patients submitted for elective rectal surgery and laparoscopic colorectal surgery is warranted."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2615 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIdiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is common, and defined as a sudden decrease in sensorineural hearing sensitivity of unknown aetiology. Systemic corticosteroids are widely used, however their value remains unclear. Intratympanic injections of corticosteroids have become increasingly common in the treatment of ISSNHL.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of intratympanic corticosteroids in people with ISSNHL.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2021, Issue 9); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials (search date 23 September 2021).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with ISSNHL and follow-up of over a week. Intratympanic corticosteroids were given as primary or secondary treatment (after failure of systemic therapy).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods, including GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was change in hearing threshold with pure tone audiometry. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people whose hearing improved, final hearing threshold, speech audiometry, frequency-specific hearing changes and adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included 30 studies, comprising 2133 analysed participants. Some studies had more than two treatment arms and were therefore relevant to several comparisons. Studies investigated intratympanic corticosteroids as either primary (initial) therapy or secondary (rescue) therapy after failure of initial treatment.\n1. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus systemic corticosteroids as primary therapy\nWe identified 16 studies (1108 participants). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no improvement in the change in hearing threshold (mean difference (MD) -5.93 dB better, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.61 to -4.26; 10 studies; 701 participants; low-certainty). We found little to no difference in the proportion of participants whose hearing was improved (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.12; 14 studies; 972 participants; moderate-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in little to no difference in the final hearing threshold (MD -3.31 dB, 95% CI -6.16 to -0.47; 7 studies; 516 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may increase the number of people who experience vertigo or dizziness (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.54; 1 study; 250 participants; low-certainty) and probably increases the number of people with ear pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 6.22 to 39.49; 2 studies; 289 participants; moderate-certainty). It also resulted in persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 3.9%; 3 studies; 359 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo/dizziness at the time of injection (1% to 21%, 3 studies; 197 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (10.5% to 27.1%; 2 studies; 289 participants; low-certainty).\n2. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as primary therapy\nWe identified 10 studies (788 participants). Combined therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -8.55 dB better, 95% CI -12.48 to -4.61; 6 studies; 435 participants; low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain as to whether combined therapy changes the proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 10 studies; 788 participants; very low-certainty). Combined therapy may result in slightly lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds but the evidence is very uncertain, and it is not clear whether the change would be important to patients (MD -9.11 dB, 95% CI -16.56 to -1.67; 3 studies; 194 participants; very low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received combined therapy. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 5.5%; 5 studies; 474 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 0% to 8.1%; 4 studies; 341 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (13.5%; 1 study; 73 participants; very low-certainty).\n3. Intratympanic corticosteroids versus no treatment or placebo as secondary therapy\nWe identified seven studies (279 participants). Intratympanic therapy may have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold (MD -9.07 dB better, 95% CI -11.47 to -6.66; 7 studies; 280 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved (RR 5.55, 95% CI 2.89 to 10.68; 6 studies; 232 participants; low-certainty). Intratympanic therapy may result in lower (more favourable) final hearing thresholds (MD -11.09 dB, 95% CI -17.46 to -4.72; 5 studies; 203 participants; low-certainty). Some adverse effects only occurred in those who received intratympanic injection. These included persistent tympanic membrane perforation (range 0% to 4.2%; 5 studies; 185 participants; very low-certainty), vertigo or dizziness at the time of injection (range 6.7% to 33%; 3 studies; 128 participants; very low-certainty) and ear pain at the time of injection (0%; 1 study; 44 participants; very low-certainty).\n4. Intratympanic plus systemic corticosteroids (combined therapy) versus systemic corticosteroids alone as secondary therapy\nWe identified one study with 76 participants. Change in hearing threshold was not reported. Combined therapy may result in a higher proportion with hearing improvement, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.55; very low-certainty). Adverse effects were poorly reported with only data for persistent tympanic membrane perforation (rate 8.1%, very low-certainty).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost of the evidence in this review is low- or very low-certainty, therefore it is likely that further studies may change our conclusions.\nFor primary therapy, intratympanic corticosteroids may have little or no effect compared with systemic corticosteroids. There may be a slight benefit from combined treatment when compared with systemic treatment alone, but the evidence is uncertain.\nFor secondary therapy, there is low-certainty evidence that intratympanic corticosteroids, when compared to no treatment or placebo, may result in a much higher proportion of participants whose hearing is improved, but may only have a small effect on the change in hearing threshold. It is very uncertain whether there is additional benefit from combined treatment over systemic steroids alone.\nAlthough adverse effects were poorly reported, the different risk profiles of intratympanic treatment (including tympanic membrane perforation, pain and dizziness/vertigo) and systemic treatment (for example, blood glucose problems) should be considered when selecting appropriate treatment.\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 30 studies that included 2133 people. These studies compared intratympanic treatment with corticosteroids with no treatment, with placebo (sham or dummy treatment) and with corticosteroids that were taken by mouth or injection into the body (systemic corticosteroids). We took into account whether people were having their first treatment for sudden deafness or whether they had previously had some other kind of treatment (which had not worked)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2616 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUterine fibroids (also known as leiomyomas) are the most common benign pelvic tumours among women. They may be asymptomatic, or may be associated with pelvic symptoms such as bleeding and pain. Medical treatment of this condition is limited and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are the most effective agents. Long-term treatment with such agents, however, is restricted due to their adverse effects. The addition of other medications during treatment with GnRH analogues, a strategy known as add-back therapy, may limit these side effects. There is concern, however, that add-back therapy may also limit the efficacy of the GnRH analogues and that it may not be able to completely prevent their adverse effects.\nObjectives\nTo assess the short-term (within 12 months) effectiveness and safety of add-back therapy for women using GnRH analogues for uterine fibroids associated with excessive uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, or urinary symptoms.\nSearch methods\nWe searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, PsycINFO; and electronic registries of ongoing trials including ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. All searches were from database inception to 16 June 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included women with uterine fibroids experiencing irregular or intense uterine bleeding, cyclic or non-cyclic pelvic pain, or urinary symptoms, and that compared treatment with a GnRH analogue plus add-back therapy versus a GnRH analogue alone or combined with placebo were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently reviewed the identified titles and abstracts for potentially eligible records. Two review authors reviewed eligible studies and independently extracted data. Two authors independently assessed the studies' risk of bias. They assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nFourteen RCTs were included in the review. Data were extracted from 12 studies (622 women). The primary outcome was quality of life (QoL).\nAdd-back therapy with medroxyprogesterone (MPA): no studies reported QoL or uterine bleeding. There was no evidence of effect in relation to bone mass (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.62 to 1.38, 1 study, 16 women, P = 0.45, low quality evidence) and MPA was associated with a larger uterine volume (mean difference (MD) 342.19 cm3, 95% CI 77.58 to 606.80, 2 studies, 32 women, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence).\nTibolone: this was associated with a higher QoL but the estimate was imprecise and the effect could be clinically insignificant, small or large (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85, 1 study, 110 women, P = 0.02, low quality evidence). It was also associated with a decreased loss of bone mass, which could be insignificant, small or moderate (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.7, 3 studies, 160 women, I2 = 7%, moderate quality evidence). Tibolone may, however, have been associated with larger uterine volumes (MD 23.89 cm3, 95% CI= 8.13 to 39.66, 6 studies, 365 women, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and more uterine bleeding (results were not combined but three studies demonstrated greater bleeding with tibolone while two other studies demonstrated no bleeding in either group). Four studies (268 women; not pooled owing to extreme heterogeneity) reported a large benefit on vasomotor symptoms in the tibolone group.\nRaloxifene: there was no evidence of an effect on QoL (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.34, 1 study, 74 women, P = 0.62, low quality evidence), while there was a beneficial impact on bone mass (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.45, 1 study, 91 women, P < 0.00001, low quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of effect on uterine volume (MD 27.1 cm3, 95% CI -17.94 to 72.14, 1 study, 91 women, P = 0.24, low quality evidence), uterine bleeding or severity of vasomotor symptoms (MD 0.2 hot flushes/day, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.74, 1 study, 91 women, P = 0.46, low quality evidence).\nEstriol: no studies reported QoL, uterine size, uterine bleeding or vasomotor symptoms. Add-back with estriol may have led to decreased loss of bone mass, from results of a single study (SMD 3.93, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.16, 1 study, 12 women, P = 0.0005, low quality evidence).\nIpriflavone: no studies reported QoL, uterine size or uterine bleeding. Iproflavone was associated with decreased loss of bone mass in a single study (SMD 2.71, 95% CI 2.14 to 3.27, 1 study, 95 women, P < 0.00001, low quality evidence); there was no evidence of an effect on the rate of vasomotor symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% Cl 0.44 to 1.02, 1 study, 95 women, P = 0.06, low quality evidence).\nConjugated estrogens: no studies reported QoL, uterine size, uterine bleeding or vasomotor symptoms. One study suggested that adding conjugated estrogens to GnRH analogues resulted in a larger decrease in uterine volume in the placebo group (MD 105.2 cm3, 95% CI 27.65 to 182.75, 1 study, 27 women, P = 0.008, very low quality evidence).\nNine of 12 studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain, most commonly lack of blinding. All studies followed participants for a maximum of six months. This short-term follow-up is usually insufficient to observe any significant effect of the treatment on bone health (such as the occurrence of fractures), limiting the findings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was low or moderate quality evidence that tibolone, raloxifene, estriol and ipriflavone help to preserve bone density and that MPA and tibolone may reduce vasomotor symptoms. Larger uterine volume was an adverse effect associated with some add-back therapies (MPA, tibolone and conjugated estrogens). For other comparisons, outcomes of interest were not reported or study findings were inconclusive.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Bone mass\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Evidence from 91 women suggested that raloxifene may have a moderate to large benefit for preserving bone mass when used for up to six months, while tibolone may have a small to moderate bone mass-preserving effect, based on data from 160 women. Estriol (studied in 12 women) and ipriflavone (studied in 95 women) may have had a large effect in decreasing the loss of bone mass associated with the use of GnRH analogues. The effect of medroxyprogesterone (MPA) on bone mass was uncertain."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2617 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines or nasal irrigation in improving symptoms of acute sinusitis in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1950 to June week 1, 2014) and EMBASE (1950 to June 2014).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, which evaluated children younger than 18 years of age with acute sinusitis, defined as 10 to 30 days of rhinorrhea, congestion or daytime cough. We excluded trials of children with chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed each study for inclusion.\nMain results\nOf the 662 studies identified through the electronic searches and handsearching, none met all the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence to determine whether the use of antihistamines, decongestants or nasal irrigation is efficacious in children with acute sinusitis. Further research is needed to determine whether these interventions are beneficial in the treatment of children with acute sinusitis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "No data are available to determine whether or not antihistamines or decongestants should be used in children with acute sinusitis."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2618 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCorneal abrasion is a common disorder frequently faced by ophthalmologists, emergency physicians, and primary care physicians. Ocular antibiotics are one of the management options for corneal abrasion. A comprehensive summary and synthesis of the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis in traumatic corneal abrasion is thus far unavailable, therefore we conducted this review to evaluate the current evidence regarding this important issue.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of topical antibiotic prophylaxis following corneal abrasion. Our objectives were 1) to investigate the incidence of infection with antibiotics versus placebo or alternative antibiotics in people with corneal abrasion; and 2) to investigate time to clinical cure, defined as complete healing (re-epithelialization) of the epithelium, with antibiotics versus placebo or alternative antibiotics in people with corneal abrasion.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, PubMed, the 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 25 April 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotic with another antibiotic or placebo in children and adults with corneal abrasion due to any cause.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for the prespecified outcomes using the GRADE classification.\nMain results\nOur search of the electronic databases yielded 8661 records. We screened 7690 titles and abstracts after removal of duplicates. We retrieved 32 full-text reports for further review. We included two studies that randomized a total of 527 eyes of 527 participants in the review. One study was conducted in Denmark, and one was conducted in India.\nThe two studies did not examine most of our prespecified primary and secondary outcomes. The first study was a parallel-group RCT comparing chloramphenicol ocular ointment with fusidic acid ocular gels (frequency was not clearly reported). This study enrolled 153 participants older than 5 years of age with corneal abrasion in Denmark with a one-day follow-up duration. No participants had secondary infection in the fusidic acid group, whereas three (4.1%) participants in the chloramphenicol group had a slight reaction (risk ratio [RR] 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 to 2.79; 144 participants; very low certainty evidence). Thirty-one (44.3%) participants in the fusidic acid arm and 34 (46.6%) participants in the chloramphenicol arm were cured (defined as the area of abrasion zero and no infection) at day 1 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.34; 144 participants; very low certainty evidence). Without providing specific data, the study reported that the degree of pain was not affected by the interventions received. The most common adverse events reported were itching and discomfort of the eye, which occurred in approximately one-third of participants in each group (low certainty evidence).\nA second multicenter, two-arm RCT conducted in India enrolled 374 participants older than 5 years of age with corneal abrasion who presented within 48 hours after injury. This study investigated the effect of a three-day course of either ocular ointment combinations of chloramphenicol-clotrimazole or chloramphenicol-placebo (all three times daily). At day 3, 169 (100%) participants in the chloramphenicol-clotrimazole arm and 203 (99%) out of 205 participants in the chloramphenicol-placebo arm were cured without any complication, defined as complete epithelialization of the cornea without evidence of infection (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.03; 374 participants; very low certainty evidence). Four participants assigned to the chloramphenicol-placebo arm experienced mild adverse events: two participants (1%) had mild chemosis and irritation, and two (1%) had small single sterile corneal infiltrates (low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the low to very low certainty of the available evidence, any beneficial effects of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing ocular infection or accelerating epithelial healing following a corneal abrasion remain unclear. Moreover, the current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. There is a need for a well-designed RCT assessing the efficacy and safety of ocular antibiotics in the treatment of corneal abrasion with a particular focus on high-risk populations and formulation of interventions.\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 two randomized controlled trials (studies where participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more treatment groups) with a total of 527 children and adults. One study in Denmark tested topical gels of chloramphenicol (a type of antibiotic) and fusidic acid (another type of antibiotic) (frequency was not clearly reported). The other study used a three-day course of ocular gel combinations of chloramphenicol (an antibiotic) and clotrimazole (an antifungal medication) or chloramphenicol and placebo (all three times daily) in India.\nIn the Danish study, the proportion of participants who recovered from corneal abrasion and had no infection was similar between groups. However, this study reported that one-third of participants in each treatment group experienced itching and discomfort of the eye.\nThe authors of the Indian study reported that 1% of participants experienced minor adverse events such as irritation and mild swelling of the eyelids and eye surface, and immunological reaction at the site.\nWe did not find any study that compared antibiotics with placebo or no treatment."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2619 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCarotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this disease. It is caused by atherosclerosis; that is, the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the artery walls. Atherosclerosis is more likely to occur in people with several risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking. As this damage can develop without symptoms, the first symptom can be a fatal or disabling stroke, known as ischaemic stroke. Carotid stenosis leading to ischaemic stroke is most common in men older than 70 years. Ischaemic stroke is a worldwide public health problem.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in preventing neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, death, major bleeding, and other outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers from their inception to 9 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status and language, comparing a pharmacological intervention to placebo, no treatment, or another pharmacological intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 34 RCTs with 11,571 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from only 22 studies with 6887 participants. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 years. None of the 34 included studies assessed neurological impairment and quality of life.\nAntiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid) versus placebo\nAcetylsalicylic acid (1 study, 372 participants) may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.47), stroke-related mortality (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.59), progression of carotid stenosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71), and adverse events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59), compared to placebo (all low-certainty evidence). The effect of acetylsalicylic acid on major bleeding is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.53; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure neurological impairment or quality of life.\nAntihypertensive agents (metoprolol and chlorthalidone) versus placebo\nThe antihypertensive agent, metoprolol, may result in no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to1.16; 1 study, 793 participants) and stroke-related mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.94; 1 study, 793 participants) compared to placebo (both low-certainty evidence). However, chlorthalidone may slow the progression of carotid stenosis (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.91; 1 study, 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Neither study measured neurological impairment, major bleeding, adverse events, or quality of life.\nAnticoagulant agent (warfarin) versus placebo\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effects of warfarin (1 study, 919 participants) on major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The study did not measure neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, stroke-related mortality, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life.\nLipid-lowering agents (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin) versus placebo or no treatment\nLipid-lowering agents may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 5 studies, 2235 participants) stroke-related mortality (lovastatin and pravastatin; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.29; 2 studies, 1366 participants), and adverse events (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to1.10; 7 studies, 3726 participants) compared to placebo or no treatment (all low-certainty evidence). The studies did not measure neurological impairment, major bleeding, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough there is no high-certainty evidence to support pharmacological intervention, this does not mean that pharmacological treatments are ineffective in preventing ischaemic cerebral events, morbidity, and mortality. High-quality RCTs are needed to better inform the best medical treatment that may reduce the burden of carotid stenosis. In the interim, clinicians will have to use other sources of information.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is up to date to August 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2620 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm birth interferes with brain maturation, and subsequent clinical events and interventions may have additional deleterious effects. Music as therapy is offered increasingly in neonatal intensive care units aiming to improve health outcomes and quality of life for both preterm infants and the well-being of their parents. Systematic reviews of mixed methodological quality have demonstrated ambiguous results for the efficacy of various types of auditory stimulation of preterm infants. A more comprehensive and rigorous systematic review is needed to address controversies arising from apparently conflicting studies and reviews.\nObjectives\nWe assessed the overall efficacy of music and vocal interventions for physiological and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation) compared to standard care. In addition, we aimed to determine specific effects of various interventions for physiological, anthropometric, social-emotional, neurodevelopmental short- and long-term outcomes in the infants, parental well-being, and bonding.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, RILM Abstracts, and ERIC in November 2021; and Proquest Dissertations in February 2019. We searched the reference lists of related systematic reviews, and of studies selected for inclusion and clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel, and cluster-randomised controlled trials with preterm infants < 37 weeks` gestation during hospitalisation, and parents when they were involved in the intervention. Interventions were any music or vocal stimulation provided live or via a recording by a music therapist, a parent, or a healthcare professional compared to standard care. The intervention duration was greater than five minutes and needed to occur more than three times.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently extracted data. We analysed the treatment effects of the individual trials using RevMan Web using a fixed-effects model to combine the data. Where possible, we presented results in meta-analyses using mean differences with 95% CI. We performed heterogeneity tests. When the I2 statistic was higher than 50%, we assessed the source of the heterogeneity by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 25 trials recruiting 1532 infants and 691 parents (21 parallel-group RCTs, four cross-over RCTs). The infants gestational age at birth varied from 23 to 36 weeks, taking place in NICUs (level 1 to 3) around the world. Within the trials, the intervention varied widely in type, delivery, frequency, and duration. Music and voice were mainly characterised by calm, soft, musical parameters in lullaby style, often integrating the sung mother's voice live or recorded, defined as music therapy or music medicine. The general risk of bias in the included studies varied from low to high risk of bias.\nMusic and vocal interventions compared to standard care\nMusic/vocal interventions do not increase oxygen saturation in the infants during the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.13, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.59; P = 0.59; 958 infants, 10 studies; high-certainty evidence). Music and voice probably do not increase oxygen saturation post-intervention either (MD 0.63, 95% CI -0.01 to 1.26; P = 0.05; 800 infants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention may not increase infant development (Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID)) with the cognitive composition score (MD 0.35, 95% CI -4.85 to 5.55; P = 0.90; 69 infants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); the motor composition score (MD -0.17, 95% CI -5.45 to 5.11; P = 0.95; 69 infants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and the language composition score (MD 0.38, 95% CI -5.45 to 6.21; P = 0.90; 69 infants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Music therapy may not reduce parental state-trait anxiety (MD -1.12, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.96; P = 0.29; 97 parents, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nThe intervention probably does not reduce respiratory rate during the intervention (MD 0.42, 95% CI -1.05 to 1.90; P = 0.57; 750 infants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and post-intervention (MD 0.51, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.58; P = 0.63; 636 infants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, music/vocal interventions probably reduce heart rates in preterm infants during the intervention (MD -1.38, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.12; P = 0.03; 1014 infants; 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). This beneficial effect was even stronger after the intervention. Music/vocal interventions reduce heart rate post-intervention (MD -3.80, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.55; P < 0.00001; 903 infants, 9 studies; high-certainty evidence) with wide CIs ranging from medium to large beneficial effects. Music therapy may not reduce postnatal depression (MD 0.50, 95% CI -1.80 to 2.81; P = 0.67; 67 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of music therapy on parental state anxiety (MD -0.15, 95% CI -2.72 to 2.41; P = 0.91; 87 parents, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about any further effects regarding all other secondary short- and long-term outcomes on the infants, parental well-being, and bonding/attachment. Two studies evaluated adverse effects as an explicit outcome of interest and reported no adverse effects from music and voice.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMusic/vocal interventions do not increase oxygen saturation during and probably not after the intervention compared to standard care. The evidence suggests that music and voice do not increase infant development (BSID) or reduce parental state-trait anxiety. The intervention probably does not reduce respiratory rate in preterm infants. However, music/vocal interventions probably reduce heart rates in preterm infants during the intervention, and this beneficial effect is even stronger after the intervention, demonstrating that music/vocal interventions reduce heart rates in preterm infants post-intervention. We found no reports of adverse effects from music and voice. Due to low-certainty evidence for all other outcomes, we could not draw any further conclusions regarding overall efficacy nor the possible impact of different intervention types, frequencies, or durations. Further research with more power, fewer risks of bias, and more sensitive and clinically relevant outcomes are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are confident that music and voice do not reduce oxygen saturation during the intervention compared to standard care. We are confident in our results of the substantial beneficial effect on the heart rate in preterm infants after the intervention. There are not enough rigorous studies (many small studies with poor recording standards) to be certain about the results of all other outcomes that we assessed in the infants and their parents. There is further uncertainty about music delivery and for which duration and frequency music works best."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2621 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSeveral rehabilitation programmes are available for individuals after lumbar disc surgery.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether active rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery is more effective than no treatment, and to describe which type of active rehabilitation is most effective. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002.\nFirst, we clustered treatments according to the start of treatment.\n1. Active rehabilitation that starts immediately postsurgery.\n2. Active rehabilitation that starts four to six weeks postsurgery.\n3. Active rehabilitation that starts longer than 12 months postsurgery.\nFor every cluster, the following comparisons were investigated.\nA. Active rehabilitation versus no treatment, placebo or waiting list control.\nB. Active rehabilitation versus other kinds of active rehabilitation.\nC. Specific intervention in addition to active rehabilitation versus active rehabilitation alone.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and PsycINFO to May 2013.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed if studies were clinically homogeneous. The GRADE approach was used to determine the overall quality of evidence.\nMain results\nIn this update, we identified eight new studies, thereby including a total of 22 trials (2503 participants), 10 of which had a low risk of bias. Most rehabilitation programmes were assessed in only one study. Both men and women were included, and overall mean age was 41.4 years. All participants had received standard discectomy, microdiscectomy and in one study standard laminectomy and (micro)discectomy. Mean duration of the rehabilitation intervention was 12 weeks; eight studies assessed six to eight-week exercise programmes, and eight studies assessed 12 to 13-week exercise programmes. Programmes were provided in primary and secondary care facilities and were started immediately after surgery (n = 4) or four to six weeks (n = 16) or one year after surgery (n = 2). In general, the overall quality of the evidence is low to very low. Rehabilitation programmes that started immediately after surgery were not more effective than their control interventions, which included exercise. Low- to very low-quality evidence suggests that there were no differences between specific rehabilitation programmes (multidisciplinary care, behavioural graded activity, strength and stretching) that started four to six weeks postsurgery and their comparators, which included some form of exercise. Low-quality evidence shows that physiotherapy from four to six weeks postsurgery onward led to better function than no treatment or education only, and that multidisciplinary rehabilitation co-ordinated by medical advisors led to faster return to work than usual care. Statistical pooling was performed only for three comparisons in which the rehabilitation programmes started four to six weeks postsurgery: exercise programmes versus no treatment, high- versus low-intensity exercise programmes and supervised versus home exercise programmes. Very low-quality evidence (five RCTs, N = 272) shows that exercises are more effective than no treatment for pain at short-term follow-up (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.24), and low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 252) suggests that exercises are more effective for functional status on short-term follow-up (SMD -0.67; 95% CI -1.22 to -0.12) and that no difference in functional status was noted on long-term follow-up (three RCTs, N = 226; SMD -0.22; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.04). None of these studies reported that exercise increased the reoperation rate. Very low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that high-intensity exercise programmes are more effective than low-intensity exercise programmes for pain in the short term (weighted mean difference (WMD) -10.67; 95% CI -17.04 to -4.30), and low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that they are more effective for functional status in the short term (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.36). Very low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 154) suggests no significant differences between supervised and home exercise programmes for short-term pain relief (SMD -0.76; 95% CI -2.04 to 0.53) or functional status (four RCTs, N = 154; SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.15).\nAuthors' conclusions\nConsiderable variation was noted in the content, duration and intensity of the rehabilitation programmes included in this review, and for none of them was high- or moderate-quality evidence identified. Exercise programmes starting four to six weeks postsurgery seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than no treatment, with small to medium effect sizes, and high-intensity exercise programmes seem to lead to a slightly faster decrease in pain and disability than is seen with low-intensity programmes, but the overall quality of the evidence is only low to very low. No significant differences were noted between supervised and home exercise programmes for pain relief, disability or global perceived effect. None of the trials reported an increase in reoperation rate after first-time lumbar surgery. High-quality randomised controlled trials are strongly needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Patients who participated in exercise programmes four to six weeks after surgery reported slightly less short-term pain and disability than those who received no treatment. Patients who participated in high-intensity exercise programmes reported slightly less short-term pain and disability than those participating in low-intensity exercise programmes. Patients in supervised exercise programmes reported little or no difference in pain and disability compared with those in home exercise programmes. Here it was difficult to draw firm conclusions in the absence of high-quality evidence.\nNone of the trials reported an increase in reoperation rate after first-time lumbar surgery.\nThe evidence does not show whether all patients should be treated after surgery or only those who still have symptoms four to six weeks later."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2622 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHeated, humidified air has long been used by people with the common cold. The theoretical basis is that steam may help congested mucus drain better and that heat may destroy the cold virus as it does in vitro. This is an update of a review last published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of inhaling heated water vapour (steam) in the treatment of the common cold by comparing symptoms, viral shedding, and nasal resistance.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to February 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to 24 February 2017), Embase (1990 to 24 February 2017), and Current Contents (1998 to 24 February 2017). We also searched World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (8 March 2017) and ClinicalTrials.gov (8 March 2017) as well as reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials using heated water vapour in participants with the common cold or experimentally induced common cold were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Three review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion of potential studies identified from the search. We recorded the selection process in sufficient detail to complete a PRISMA flow diagram. We used a data collection form for study characteristics and outcome data that was developed and used for previous versions of this review. Two review authors independently extracted data, and a third review author resolved any disagreements. We used Review Manager 5 software to analyse data.\nMain results\nWe included six trials from five publications involving a total of 387 participants. We included no new studies in this 2017 update. The 'Risk of bias' assessment suggested an unclear risk of bias in the domain of randomisation and a low risk of bias in performance, detection, attrition, and reporting.\nIt was uncertain whether heated, humidified air provides symptomatic relief for the common cold, as the fixed-effect analysis showed evidence of an effect (odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.56; 2 studies, 149 participants), but the random-effects analysis showed no significant difference in the results (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.95). There is an argument for using either form of analysis. No studies demonstrated an exacerbation of clinical symptom scores. One study conducted in the USA demonstrated worsened nasal resistance, but an earlier Israeli study showed improvement. One study examined viral shedding in nasal washings, finding no significant difference between treatment and placebo groups (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.19). As judged by the subjective response to therapy (i.e. therapy did not help), the number of participants reporting resolution of symptoms was not significantly higher in the heated humidified group (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.18; 2 studies, 124 participants). There was significant heterogeneity in the effects of heated, humidified air on different outcomes, therefore we graded the quality of the evidence as low. Some studies reported minor adverse events (including discomfort or irritation of the nose).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence does not show any benefits or harms from the use of heated, humidified air delivered via the RhinoTherm device for the treatment of the common cold. There is a need for more double-blind, randomised trials that include standardised treatment modalities.\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": "None of the included studies reported any worsening in clinical symptom scores after inhaling heated, humidified air. Participants in two trials showed a lack of persistent symptoms, however the results were inconsistent. Two studies reported minor adverse events. There was no effect of treatment on rhinovirus shedding."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2623 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from an inflamed or necrotic dental pulp, or infection of the pulpless root canal system. Clinical guidelines recommend that the first-line treatment for teeth with these conditions should be removal of the source of inflammation or infection by local, operative measures, and that systemic antibiotics are currently only recommended for situations where there is evidence of spreading infection (cellulitis, lymph node involvement, diffuse swelling) or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). Despite this, there is evidence that dentists frequently prescribe antibiotics in the absence of these signs. There is concern that this could contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial colonies within both the individual and the community. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics provided with or without surgical intervention (such as extraction, incision and drainage of a swelling, or endodontic treatment), with or without analgesics, for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 February 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 February 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 February 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 February 2018), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 26 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. A grey literature search was conducted using OpenGrey (to 26 February 2018) and ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 26 February 2018). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of systemic antibiotics in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess, with or without surgical intervention (considered in this situation to be extraction, incision and drainage or endodontic treatment) and with or without analgesics.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MD) (standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data. A fixed-effect model was used in the meta-analysis as there were fewer than four studies. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.\nMain results\nWe included two trials in this review, with 62 participants included in the analyses. Both trials were conducted in university dental schools in the USA and compared the effects of oral penicillin V potassium (penicillin VK) versus a matched placebo when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention (total or partial pulpectomy) and analgesics to adults with acute apical abscess or symptomatic necrotic tooth. The patients included in these trials had no signs of spreading infection or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). We assessed one study as having a high risk of bias and the other study as having unclear risk of bias.\nThe primary outcome variables reported in both studies were participant-reported pain and swelling (one trial also reported participant-reported percussion pain). One study reported the type and number of analgesics taken by participants. One study recorded the incidence of postoperative endodontic flare-ups (people who returned with symptoms that necessitated further treatment). Adverse effects, as reported in one study, were diarrhoea (one participant, placebo group) and fatigue and reduced energy postoperatively (one participant, antibiotic group). Neither study reported quality of life measurements.\nObjective 1: systemic antibiotics versus placebo with surgical intervention and analgesics for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess\nTwo studies provided data for the comparison between systemic antibiotics (penicillin VK) and a matched placebo for adults with acute apical abscess or a symptomatic necrotic tooth when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention. Participants in one study all underwent a total pulpectomy of the affected tooth, while participants in the other study had their tooth treated by either partial or total pulpectomy. Participants in both trials received oral analgesics. There were no statistically significant differences in participant-reported measures of pain or swelling at any of the time points assessed within the review. The MD for pain (short ordinal numerical scale 0 to 3) was -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47) at 24 hours; 0.32 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.86) at 48 hours; and 0.08 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.54) at 72 hours. The SMD for swelling was 0.27 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.78) at 24 hours; 0.04 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.55) at 48 hours; and 0.02 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.52) at 72 hours. The body of evidence was assessed as at very low quality.\nObjective 2: systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess\nWe found no studies that compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-quality evidence that is insufficient to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics on adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess.\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 two studies included in the review reported that there were no clear differences in the pain or swelling reported by participants who received oral antibiotics compared with a placebo (a dummy treatment) when provided alongside the first stage of root canal treatment and painkillers. However, the studies were small and produced poor quality evidence, and therefore we cannot be certain if the results are correct. Neither study examined the effect of antibiotics on their own, without surgical dental treatment.\nOne trial reported side effects among participants: one person who received the placebo medication had diarrhoea and one person who received antibiotics experienced tiredness and reduced energy after their treatment."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2624 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is the standard of care for removing large kidney stones (> 2 cm). Once the procedure is complete, different exiting strategies exist to manage the percutaneous tract opening, including placement of an external nephrostomy tube, placement of an internal ureteral stent, or no external or internal tube. The decision to place or not place a tube is handled differently among clinicians and may affect patient outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of tubeless PNL (with ureteral stenting), totally tubeless PNL (without ureteral stenting or nephrostomy), and standard PNL (nephrostomy only) for the treatment of kidney stones in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a systematic literature search in multiple biomedical databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science), as well as in two clinical trial registries. We also handsearched reference lists of relevant publications and conference proceedings. We applied no language restrictions. The latest search update was conducted in September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled and quasi-randomized controlled trials of adult patients who received tubeless, totally tubeless, or standard PNL for treating kidney stones. We defined tubeless PNL as no nephrostomy tube, but ureteral stenting, while totally tubeless PNL meant no nephrostomy tube or ureteral stenting. Both interventions were compared to standard PNL with placement of a nephrostomy tube (only). We considered access tubes of any sizes. We only considered unilateral PNL with single-tract access. There were no exclusions on stone composition, size, or location.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were severe adverse events and postoperative pain, and secondary outcomes were operating time, length of hospital stay, and stone-free rate. We used the random-effects model for meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies in the review. Participant age varied among studies, ranging from 20 to 60 years. Detailed information on stone characteristics was rarely presented.\nTubeless PNL versus standard PNL\nWe are very uncertain whether there is a difference in severe adverse events (SAEs) between tubeless PNL and standard PNL (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 16.46; I2 = 42%; 2 studies, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tubeless PNL may have little to no effect on pain on postoperative day one (mean difference (MD) 0.56 lower, 95% CI 1.34 lower to 0.21 higher; I2 = 84%; 4 studies, 186 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably results in little to no difference in operating room time (MD 0.40 longer (in minutes), 95% CI 4.82 shorter to 5.62 longer; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 81 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Tubeless PNL may reduce length of hospital stay (MD 0.90 shorter, 95% CI 1.45 shorter to 0.35 shorter; I2 = 84%; 6 studies, 238 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain of the effect of tubeless PNL on blood transfusions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.52; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence), sepsis or fever (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.75; I2 = not applicable; 2 studies, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or readmissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.21; I2 = not applicable, 1 study, 24 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nTotally tubeless versus standard PNL\nTotally tubeless PNL may result in lower SAE rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.25; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 174 participants; low-certainty evidence) and pain on postoperative day one (MD 3.60 lower, 95% CI 4.24 lower to 2.96 lower; I2 = Not applicable; 1 study, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). Totally tubeless PNL may result in little to no difference in operating room time (MD 6.23 shorter (in minutes), 95% CI 14.29 shorter to 1.84 longer; I2 = 72%; 2 studies, 174 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and sepsis or fever (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.97; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 90 participants; low-certainty evidence). Totally tubeless PNL likely shortens the length of hospital stay (MD 1.55 shorter, 95% CI 1.82 shorter to 1.29 shorter; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 274 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain of the effect of totally tubeless PNL on blood transfusions (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 274 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or readmissions (RR not estimable, 95% CI not estimable; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe found no studies comparing tubeless mini versus standard mini-PNL or totally tubeless mini versus standard mini-PNL.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen comparing tubeless to standard PNL with regard to the predefined primary outcomes of this review, there may be little difference in early postoperative pain, while we are very uncertain of the effect on SAEs. People treated with tubeless PNL may benefit from a reduced length of stay compared to standard PNL. When comparing totally tubeless to standard PNL, early postoperative pain and severe adverse events may be reduced with totally tubeless PNL. The certainty of evidence by outcome was mostly very low (range: moderate to very low) for the comparison of tubeless to standard PNL and low (range: moderate to very low) for the comparison of totally tubeless to standard PNL. The most common reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence were study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision. We did not find randomized trial evidence for other comparisons. Overall, further and higher-quality studies are needed to inform clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to know how important it is to leave a nephrostomy tube (which connects the inside of the kidney to the skin) or a ureteral stent (a small tube that goes from the inside of the kidney through the ureter to the bladder) in people after a percutaneous kidney stone removal operation (percutaneous nephrolithotomy [PNL])."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2625 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNon-bismuth quadruple sequential therapy (SEQ) comprising a first induction phase with a dual regimen of amoxicillin and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for five days followed by a triple regimen phase with a PPI, clarithromycin and metronidazole for another five days, has been suggested as a new first-line treatment option to replace the standard triple therapy (STT) comprising a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), clarithromycin and amoxicillin, in which eradication proportions have declined to disappointing levels.\nObjectives\nTo conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of a SEQ regimen with STT for the eradication of H. pylori infection, and to compare the incidence of adverse effects associated with both STT and SEQ H. pylori eradication therapies.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted bibliographical searches in electronic databases, and handsearched abstracts from Congresses up to April 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 10-day SEQ and STT (of at least seven days) for the eradication of H. pylori. Participants were adults and children diagnosed as positive for H. pylori infection and naïve to H. pylori treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used a pre-piloted, tabular summary to collect demographic and medical information of included study participants as well as therapeutic data and information related to the diagnosis and confirmatory tests.\nWe evaluated the difference in intention-to-treat eradication between SEQ and STT regimens across studies, and assessed sources of the heterogeneity of this risk difference (RD) using subgroup analyses.\nWe evaluated the quality of the evidence following Cochrane standards, and summarised it using GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 44 RCTs with a total of 12,284 participants (6042 in SEQ and 6242 in STT). The overall analysis showed that SEQ was significantly more effective than STT (82% vs 75% in the intention-to-treat analysis; RD 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.11; P < 0.001, moderate-quality evidence). Results were highly heterogeneous (I² = 75%), and 20 studies did not demonstrate differences between therapies.\nReporting by geographic region (RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.12; studies = 44; I² = 75%, based on low-quality evidence) showed that differences between SEQ and STT were greater in Europe (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.19) when compared to Asia, Africa or South America. European studies also showed a tendency towards better efficacy with SEQ; however, this tendency was reversed in 33% of the Asian studies. Africa reported the closest risk difference (RD 0.14 , 95% 0.07 to 0.22) to Europe among studied regions, but confidence intervals were wider and therefore the quality of the evidence showing SEQ to be superior to STT was reduced for this region.\nBased on high-quality evidence, subgroup analyses showed that SEQ and STT therapies were equivalent when STT lasted for 14 days. Although, overall, the mean eradication proportion with SEQ was over 80%, we noted a tendency towards a lower average effect with this regimen in the more recent studies (2008 and after); weighted linear regression showed that the efficacies of both regimens evolved differently over the years, having a higher reduction in the efficacy of SEQ (-1.72% yearly) than in STT (-0.9% yearly). In these more recent studies (2008 and after) we were also unable to detect the superiority of SEQ over STT when STT was given for 10 days.\nBased on very low-quality evidence, subgroup analyses on antibiotic resistance showed that the widest difference in efficacy between SEQ and STT was in the subgroup analysis based on clarithromycin-resistant participants, in which SEQ reached a 75% average efficacy versus 43% with STT.\nReporting on adverse events (AEs) (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; participants = 8103; studies = 27; I² = 26%, based on high-quality evidence) showed no significant differences between SEQ and STT (20.4% vs 19.5%, respectively) and results were homogeneous.\nThe quality of the studies was limited due to a lack of systematic reporting of the factors affecting risk of bias. Although randomisation was reported, its methodology (e.g. algorithms, number of blocks) was not specified in several studies. Additionally, the other 'Risk of bias' domains (such as allocation concealment of the sequence randomisation, or blinding during either performance or outcome assessment) were also unreported.\nHowever, subgroup analyses as well as sensitivity analyses or funnel plots indicated that treatment outcomes were not influenced by the quality of the included studies. On the other hand, we rated 'length of STT' and AEs for the main outcome as high-quality according to GRADE classification; but we downgraded 'publication date' quality to moderate, and 'geographic region' and 'antibiotic resistance' to low- and very low-quality, respectively.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur meta-analysis indicates that prior to 2008 SEQ was more effective than STT, especially when STT was given for only seven days. Nevertheless, the apparent advantage of sequential treatment has decreased over time, and more recent studies do not show SEQ to have a higher efficacy versus STT when STT is given for 10 days.\nBased on the results of this meta-analysis, although SEQ offers an advantage when compared with STT, it cannot be presented as a valid alternative, given that neither SEQ nor STT regimens achieved optimal efficacy ( ≥ 90% eradication rate).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To estimate the difference in cure rates between both treatments, and to identify factors that may improve or reduce the cure rate for both treatments."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2626 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNasal masks and nasal prongs are used as interfaces for providing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress, either as primary support after birth or as ongoing support after endotracheal extubation from mechanical ventilation. It is unclear which type of interface is associated with lower rates of CPAP treatment failure, nasal trauma, or mortality and other morbidity.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of nasal masks versus nasal prongs for reducing CPAP treatment failure, nasal trauma, or mortality and other morbidity in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing masks versus prongs as interfaces for delivery of nasal CPAP in newborn preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) with or at risk of respiratory distress.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. treatment failure, 2. all-cause mortality, and 3. neurodevelopmental impairment. Our secondary outcomes were 4. pneumothorax, 5. moderate–severe nasal trauma, 6. bronchopulmonary dysplasia, 7. duration of CPAP use, 8. duration of oxygen supplementation, 9. duration of hospitalisation, 10. patent ductus arteriosus receiving medical or surgical treatment, 11. necrotising enterocolitis, 12. severe intraventricular haemorrhage, and 13. severe retinopathy of prematurity. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials with 1604 infants. All trials were small (median number of participants 118). The trials occurred after 2001 in care facilities internationally, predominantly in India (eight trials). Most participants were preterm infants of 26 to 34 weeks' gestation who received nasal CPAP as the primary form of respiratory support after birth. The studied interfaces included commonly used commercially available masks and prongs. Lack of measures to blind caregivers or investigators was a potential source of performance and detection bias in all the trials.\nMeta-analyses suggested that use of masks compared with prongs may reduce CPAP treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.90; 8 trials, 919 infants; low certainty). The type of interface may not affect mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.22; 7 trials, 814 infants; low certainty). There are no data on neurodevelopmental impairment. Meta-analyses suggest that the choice of interface may result in little or no difference in the risk of pneumothorax (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.93; 5 trials, 625 infants; low certainty). Use of masks rather than prongs may reduce the risk of moderate–severe nasal injury (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71; 10 trials, 1058 infants; low certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; 7 trials, 843 infants; very low certainty).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available trial data provide low-certainty evidence that use of masks compared with prongs as the nasal CPAP interface may reduce treatment failure and nasal injury, and may have little or no effect on mortality or the risk of pneumothorax in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. The effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia is very uncertain. Large, high-quality trials would be needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We assessed whether there was evidence to favour masks versus prongs for reducing the rates of CPAP treatment failure (that is, the baby's condition worsening or the baby needing mechanical ventilation), and reducing complications and harms."
}
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.