dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum | 3338 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgery is a common treatment modality for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), usually offered to women for whom conservative treatments have failed. Midurethral tapes have superseded colposuspension because cure rates are comparable and recovery time is reduced. However, some women will not be cured after midurethral tape surgery. Currently, there is no consensus on how to manage the condition in these women.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for treating recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive synthetic midurethral tape surgery in women; and to summarise the principal findings of economic evaluations of these interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 9 November 2018). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in women who had recurrent stress urinary incontinence after previous minimally invasive midurethral tape surgery. We included conservative, pharmacological and surgical treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors checked the abstracts of identified studies to confirm their eligibility. We obtained full-text reports of relevant studies and contacted study authors directly for additional information where necessary. We extracted outcome data onto a standard proforma and processed them according to the guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe included one study in this review. This study was later reported in an originally unplanned secondary analysis of 46 women who underwent transobturator tape for recurrent SUI after one or more previous failed operations. We were unable to use the data, as they were not presented according to the nature of the first operation.\nWe excluded 12 studies, five because they were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four because previous incontinence surgery was not performed using midurethral tape. We considered a further three to be ineligible because neither the trial report nor personal communication with the trialists could confirm whether any of the participants had previously undergone surgery with tape.\nWe had also planned to develop a brief economic commentary summarising the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations but supplementary systematic searches did not identify any such studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere were insufficient data to assess the effects of any of the different management strategies for recurrent or persistent stress incontinence after failed midurethral tape surgery. No published papers have reported exclusively on women whose first operation was a midurethral tape. Evidence from further RCTs and economic evaluations is required to address uncertainties about the effects and costs of these treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Authors' conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We did not find enough data to accurately assess the effects of any of the different management strategies for recurrent or persistent stress incontinence after failed midurethral tape surgery. Evidence from high-quality studies is required to address this area of uncertainty."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3339 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAdalimumab is a fully human anti-TNFalpha monoclonal antibody. Published studies indicate that its use in patients with RA can be effective and safe.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in the treatment of RA.\nSearch methods\nElectronic databases were searched up to August, 2004: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EBM Reviews (CDSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE and CENTRAL) and Health STAR. Conference proceedings were hand searched and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to obtain additional unpublished data from published trials. Adalimumab was searched as a text word as it is not currently indexed. The search was not limited by language, year of publication or type of publication.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing adalimumab alone or in combination with DMARDs to placebo or other DMARDs.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently collected the data in a standardized form and assessed the methodological quality of the trial using validated criteria. Outcome measures included ACR and EULAR responses, DAS 28 and components of ACR response and radiographic data. Safety data were also included. Continuous data were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI), absolute benefit (AB) and relative difference (RD). Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI, absolute risk difference (ARD) or risk difference (RDiff) with 95%CI and number needed to treat (NNT) or to harm (NNH). When significant heterogeneity was not found, data were pooled.\nMain results\nSix studies with 2381 patients were included in this review. Two comparisons were done: A. adalimumab subcutaneously (sc) + methotrexate (or DMARDs) versus placebo sc + methotrexate (or DMARDs). B. adalimumab sc in monotherapy versus placebo sc. In the comparison A, with adalimumab 40 mg every other week (e.o.w.), the RR to achieve an ACR 20 response at 24 weeks ranged in the included studies from 1.52 to 4.63, and the NNT ranged from 1.9 to 5.4. The RR (95%CI) to achieve an ACR 50 response was 4.63 (3.04-7.05), and the NNT was 3.0 (95%CI 2.0-6.0). The RR (95%CI) to achieve an ACR 70 response was 5.14 (3.14-8.41) and the number needed to treat was 7.0 (95%CI 5.0-13.0). At 52 weeks, the RRs (95%CI) to achieve an ACR 20, 50, and 70 response were 2.46 (1.87-3.22), 4.37 (2.77-6.91), and 5.15 (2.60-10.22), with NNTs of 2.9, 3.1, and 5.3, respectively. At 52 weeks, adalimumab 40 mg e.o.w. and 20 mg every week (e.w.) significantly slowed the radiological progression including Sharp modified index, erosion score, and joint space score (only with 40 mg e.o.w.). In the comparison B, with adalimumab 40 mg e.o w. , the RRs to achieve an ACR 20, 50, and 70 response at 24/26 weeks were 1.91 (1.17-3.10), 2.84 (1.58-5.12), and 7.33 (2.25-33.90) with NNTs of 5.0 (95%CI 3.0-9.0), 7.0 (4.0-20.0), and 9.0 (3.0-38.0), respectively. In most of the analysed studies and comparisons, there were not significant differences in safety outcomes between adalimumab and control groups. The development of positive antinuclear antibodies was significantly more frequent in adalimumab patients than in placebo patients. Serious infections were significantly more frequent in adalimumab patients in only one study (Keystone 2004) with a RR (95%CI) of 7.64(1.02-57.18) and a NNH of 30.2.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOn the basis of the studies reviewed here, adalimumab in combination with methotrexate is efficacious and safe in the treatment of the rheumatoid arthritis. Adalimumab 40 mg sc e.o.w. and 20 mg e.w. slows the radiographic progression at 52 weeks. Adalimumab in combination with DMARDs other than methotrexate is also efficacious and safe, even though data from one only study are available and the number of patients in each group is low. Adalimumab in monotherapy is efficacious and safe in the treatment of the rheumatoid arthritis but the effect size is lower than with combined therapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How well did adalimumab work?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "More people improved with all doses of adalimumab plus methotrexate than with fake injections plus methotrexate. After 24 weeks:- 43 out of 100 people showed a 50% improvement with 40 mg of adalimumab every other week plus methotrexate- 9 out of 100 people showed a 50% improvement with fake injections plus methotrexateThis means that 34 more people out of 100 benefited from receiving adalimumab plus methotrexate than fake injections plus methotrexate.More people had improved symptoms with adalimumab alone than with fake injections, but the improvement was not at much as when adalimumab was taken in combination with methotrexate.After 52 weeks, x-rays showed that 20 mg of adalimumab every week or 40 mg every other week slowed joint damage more than fake injections."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3340 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCurrent recommendations for people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) to partake in physical activity are based on low-level evidence, do not incorporate evidence from all available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and provide little information regarding potential adverse effects.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of physical activity interventions in adults diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome and to explore possible effect moderators including type, setting and nature of physical activity interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched nine electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to 5 November 2021. We handsearched reference lists and sought unpublished studies through trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs involving adults (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed with IBS and conducted in any setting comparing a physical activity intervention with no intervention, usual care or wait-list control group or another physical activity intervention group and assessing a validated measure of symptoms, quality of life or bowel movement.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted study data, and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments to assess the certainty of evidence. We pooled studies that evaluated similar outcomes using a random-effects meta-analysis, and synthesised data from other studies narratively.\nMain results\nWe included 11 RCTs with data for 622 participants. Most (10/11) were set in high- or middle- to high-income countries, with five involving supervised physical activity, three unsupervised activity and three a mix of supervised and unsupervised activity. No trial was at low risk of bias. Four trials specified a minimally important difference for at least one assessed outcome measure. Data for 10 trials were obtained from published journal articles, with data for one obtained from an unpublished Masters degree thesis.\nIrritable bowel syndrome symptoms\nSix RCTs assessed the effectiveness of a physical activity intervention compared with usual care on global symptoms of IBS. Meta-analysis of five studies showed an observed improvement in reported symptoms following physical activity (standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.44 to –0.42; 185 participants). We rated the certainty of evidence for this outcome as very low due to unclear and high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision from sparse data. This means physical activity may improve IBS symptoms but the evidence is very uncertain. The results of the remaining study supported the meta-analysis but were at unclear risk of bias and sample size was small.\nTwo studies assessed the effectiveness of a yoga intervention compared with a walking intervention on global IBS symptoms. Meta-analysis of these two studies found no conclusive evidence of an effect of yoga compared with walking on IBS symptoms (SMD –1.16, 95% CI –3.93 to 1.62; 124 participants). We rated the certainty of evidence as very low, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of yoga interventions compared with walking interventions on IBS symptoms.\nTwo studies assessed the effectiveness of a physical activity intervention (yoga) compared with medication. One reported no observed difference in global IBS symptoms, though CIs were wide, suggesting uncertainty in the observed estimates and risk of bias was high (MD –1.20, 95% CI –2.65 to 0.25; 21 participants). We excluded IBS symptom data for the remaining study as it used a non-validated method.\nOne study compared a yoga intervention with a dietary intervention and reported an observed improvement in symptoms with both interventions but neither intervention was superior to the other.\nQuality of life\nFive RCTs assessed the impact of physical activity on self-reported quality of life compared with usual care. Meta-analysis of data from four studies found no improvement in quality of life following a physical activity intervention (SMD 1.17, 95% CI –0.30 to 2.64; 134 participants; very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision). We rated the certainty of evidence as very low, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical activity interventions on quality-of-life outcomes in people with IBS.\nOne study assessed the impact on quality of life of a yoga intervention compared with walking and observed an improvement in the yoga group (MD 53.45, 95% CI 38.85 to 68.05; 97 participants ).\nOne study reported no observed difference in quality of life between a yoga and a dietary intervention.\nAbdominal pain\nTwo trials assessed the impact of physical activity compared with usual care on reported abdominal pain. Meta-analysis found no improvement in abdominal pain with physical activity compared with usual care (SMD 0.01, 95% CI –0.48 to 0.50; 64 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical activity interventions on abdominal pain in people with IBS.\nOne study assessing the impact of a yoga intervention compared with walking advice reported no observed differences between groups on abdominal pain.\nOne study comparing a yoga intervention with a dietary intervention found neither intervention had a more beneficial impact than the other and both interventions did not conclusively reduce abdominal pain.\nThere was insufficient evidence to adequately assess adverse effects associated with physical activity due to a lack of reporting in trials. One study reported a musculoskeletal injury in a yoga intervention group but this did not result in withdrawal from the study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFindings from a small body of evidence suggest that physical activity comprising of yoga, treadmill exercise or support to increase physical activity may improve symptoms but not quality of life or abdominal pain in people diagnosed with IBS but we have little confidence in these conclusions due to the very low certainty of evidence.\nThe numbers of reported adverse events were low and the certainty of these findings was very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn.\nDiscussions with patients considering physical activity as part of symptom management should address the uncertainty in the evidence to ensure fully informed decisions. If deemed sufficiently important to patients and healthcare providers, higher quality research is needed to enable more certain conclusions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is up-to-date to 5 November 2021."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3341 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchiectasis is being increasingly diagnosed and recognised as an important contributor to chronic lung disease in both adults and children in high- and low-income countries. It is characterised by irreversible dilatation of airways and is generally associated with airway inflammation and chronic bacterial infection. Medical management largely aims to reduce morbidity by controlling the symptoms, reduce exacerbation frequency, improve quality of life and prevent the progression of bronchiectasis. This is an update of a review first published in 2000.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adults with stable state bronchiectasis, specifically to assess whether the use of ICS: (1) reduces the severity and frequency of acute respiratory exacerbations; or (2) affects long-term pulmonary function decline.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, MEDLINE and Embase databases. We ran the latest literature search in June 2017.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ICS with a placebo or no medication. We included children and adults with clinical or radiographic evidence of bronchiectasis, but excluded people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe reviewed search results against predetermined criteria for inclusion. In this update, two independent review authors assessed methodological quality and risk of bias in trials using established criteria and extracted data using standard pro forma. We analysed treatment as 'treatment received' and performed sensitivity analyses.\nMain results\nThe review included seven studies, involving 380 adults. Of the 380 randomised participants, 348 completed the studies.\nDue to differences in outcomes reported among the seven studies, we could only perform limited meta-analysis for both the short-term ICS use (6 months or less) and the longer-term ICS use (> 6 months).\nDuring stable state in the short-term group (ICS for 6 months or less), based on the two studies from which data could be included, there were no significant differences from baseline values in the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) at the end of the study (mean difference (MD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to 0.09) and forced vital capacity (FVC) (MD 0.01 L, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.17) in adults on ICS (compared to no ICS). Similarly, we did not find any significant difference in the average exacerbation frequency (MD 0.09, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.79) or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) total scores in adults on ICS when compared with no ICS, though data available were limited. Based on a single non-placebo controlled study from which we could not extract clinical data, there was marginal, though statistically significant improvement in sputum volume and dyspnoea scores on ICS.\nThe single study on long-term outcomes (over 6 months) that examined lung function and other clinical outcomes, showed no significant effect of ICS on any of the outcomes. We could not draw any conclusion on adverse effects due to limited available data.\nDespite the authors of all seven studies stating they were double-blind, we judged one study (in the short duration ICS) as having a high risk of bias based on blinding, attrition and reporting of outcomes. The GRADE quality of evidence was low for all outcomes (due to non-placebo controlled trial, indirectness and imprecision with small numbers of participants and studies).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated review indicates that there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of ICS in adults with stable state bronchiectasis. Further, we cannot draw any conclusion for the use of ICS in adults during an acute exacerbation or in children (for any state), as there were no studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included studies that compared ICS with no ICS, or with a placebo (i.e. a medication made to look the same as ICS but with no active ingredients). We only included studies where it was decided at random who would receive ICS and who would not. The participants included in the seven studies were 380 adults who had bronchiectasis diagnosed by symptoms or from a detailed lung scan (computed tomography (CT)). We did not include studies that involved participants with cystic fibrosis, which can also cause bronchiectasis. Although we planned to include studies involving children with bronchiectasis, we did not find such studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3342 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite major advances in medical technology, the incidence of preterm birth remains high. The use of antenatal corticosteroid administered transplacentally, by intramuscular injection to women at risk of preterm birth, has reduced the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome and increased the survival rates of preterm infants. However, this intervention also comes with its own risks and side effects. Animal studies and early studies in pregnant women at risk of preterm birth have reported the use of an alternative route of administration, by direct intramuscular injection of corticosteroid into the fetus under ultrasound guidance, in an attempt to minimise the side-effect profile. Direct fetal corticosteroid administration may have benefits over maternal administration in terms of safety and efficacy.\nObjectives\nTo assess if different routes of corticosteroid administration (maternal versus direct fetal) have effects on health outcomes for women and their babies.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 October 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (25 October 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing maternal with direct fetal routes of antenatal corticosteroid administration in women at risk of preterm birth.\nData collection and analysis\nThe two review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two review authors will extract data and assess the risks of bias in included studies. We will also assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials to include in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available clinical studies carried out so far on animals and human have shown that direct intramuscular injection of corticosteroid into the fetus under ultrasound guidance is feasible, but data on health outcomes are lacking. Uncertainty therefore persists as to which method could provide better efficacy and safety. Randomised controlled trials are required focusing on the benefits and harms of transplacental versus direct fetal corticosteroid treatment. Until the uncertainties have been addressed, it is advisable to stay with the current standard of antenatal transplacental maternally-administered corticosteroid treatment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for evidence on 25 October 2017 and we did not find any completed randomised controlled trials that assess the benefits and harms of direct injection of corticosteroid into the fetus compared with injection into the mother, for women who are at risk of preterm birth. We found two studies, but one was not a randomised controlled trial, and in the other study the methods were unclear, so we have contacted the study authors for further information."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3343 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease is the most common single gene disorder and the commonest haemoglobinopathy found with high prevalence in many populations across the world. Management of dental complications in people with sickle cell disease requires special consideration for three main reasons. Firstly, dental and oral tissues are affected by the blood disorder resulting in several oro-facial abnormalities. Secondly, living with a haemoglobinopathy and coping with its associated serious consequences may result in individuals neglecting their oral health care. Finally, the treatment of these oral complications must be adapted to the systemic condition and special needs of these individuals, in order not to exacerbate or deteriorate their general health.\nGuidelines for the treatment of dental complications in this population who require special care are unclear and even unavailable in many aspects. Hence this review was undertaken to provide a basis for clinical care by investigating and analysing the existing evidence in the literature for the treatment of dental complications in people with sickle cell disease. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo assess methods of treating dental complications in people with sickle cell disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Review Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.\nDate of last search: 01 August 2019.\nAdditionally, we searched nine online databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Literature in the Health Sciences in Latin America and the Caribbean database, African Index Medicus, Index Medicus for South East Asia Region, Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Indexing of Indian Medical Journals). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and contacted haematologists, experts in fields of dentistry, organizations, pharmaceutical companies and researchers working in this field.\nDate of last search: 07 November 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled studies of treatments for dental complications in people with sickle cell disease.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors intended to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of the included studies using standard Cochrane methodologies; however, no studies were identified for inclusion in the review.\nMain results\nNo randomised controlled studies were identified.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis Cochrane Review did not identify any randomised controlled studies assessing interventions for the treatment of dental complications in people with sickle cell disease. There is an important need for randomised controlled studies in this area, so as to identify the most effective and safe method for treating dental complications in people with sickle cell disease.\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": "Sickle cell disease is a blood disorder which affects at least 5.2% of the world population across a large number of countries. In this condition, a genetic defect means that the haemoglobin in the red blood cells is not normal, instead the blood cells become sickle-shaped and not a normal disc shape. These cells become trapped in blood vessels of various organs, especially during stressful events like a lack of oxygen, dehydration, extreme temperatures, stress, menstruation and infection. Blocked blood vessels lead to sudden episodes of severe pain in the short term and chronic organ damage in the long term.\nSickle cell disease also leads to changes and complications in the mouth, jaw and facial areas. Management of these dental complications is often neglected as people with sickle cell disease focus all their energy on maintaining their general health due to the serious blood disorder. Neglecting minor dental health issues under these circumstances not only worsens the problem but may also cause a painful sickle-cell crisis, leading to emergency hospital admissions. Treatment of oral complications in this group of people needs to be tailored around their blood disorder, in order not to cause any further deterioration to their general health.\nThere is a lack of information on the appropriate treatment for dental complications in people with sickle cell disease,with no clear guidelines available. This often results in many people being refused treatment by dentists due to a fear of complications. Hence, we planned to investigate this issue and make any evidence in this area available to healthcare providers and people with the disease."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3344 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEnteral feeding for very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants is often delayed for several days after birth due to concern that early introduction of feeding may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. Concerns exist, however, that delaying enteral feeding may diminish the functional adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract and prolong the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants.\nSearch methods\nSearch strategies were developed by an information specialist in consultation with the review authors. The following databases were searched in October 2021 without date or language restrictions: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to October 2021), Embase via OVID (1974 to October 2021), Maternity and Infant Care via OVID (1971 to October 2021), CINAHL (1982 to October 2021). We also searched for eligible trials in clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, previous reviews, and reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of delayed (four or more days after birth) versus earlier introduction of progressive enteral feeds on necrotising enterocolitis, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors separately evaluated trial risk of bias, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects on necrotising enterocolitis, mortality, feed intolerance, and invasive infection.\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials in which a total of 1551 infants participated. Potential sources of bias were lack of clarity on methods to generate random sequences and conceal allocation in half of the trials, and lack of masking of caregivers or investigators in all of the trials. Trials typically defined delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds as later than four to seven days after birth and early introduction as four days or fewer after birth. Infants in six trials (accounting for about half of all of the participants) had intrauterine growth restriction or circulatory redistribution demonstrated by absent or reversed end-diastolic flow velocities in the fetal aorta or umbilical artery.\nMeta-analyses showed that delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds may not reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.14; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; 13 trials, 1507 infants; low-certainty evidence due risk of bias and imprecision) nor all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 12 trials, 1399 infants; low-certainty evidence due risk of bias and imprecision). Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds may slightly reduce the risk of feed intolerance (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97; RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 11, 95% CI 6 to 50; 6 trials, 581 infants; low-certainty evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision) and probably increases the risk of invasive infection (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.80; RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.15; number needed to treat for a harmful outcome = 10, 95% CI 7 to 25; 7 trials, 872 infants; moderate-certainty evidence due to risk of bias).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDelaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds beyond four days after birth (compared with earlier introduction) may not reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis or death in very preterm or VLBW infants. Delayed introduction may slightly reduce feed intolerance, and probably increases the risk of invasive infection.\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": "Very preterm (born more than eight weeks early) or very low birth weight (VLBW; less than 1500 grams) newborn babies are at risk of developing a severe bowel disorder called necrotising enterocolitis (where the bowel becomes inflamed and dies). Infants whose growth in the womb is compromised are thought to have a high risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. Very preterm or VLBW infants are initially fed low amounts of milk, with amounts gradually increased over several days. Delaying the introduction and increase in volume of milk feeds for several days (or longer) after birth may be one possible way to reduce the risk of this condition."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3345 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Evidence suggests that opioid pharmacotherapy is the most effective of these therapies. Hydromorphone appears to be an alternative opioid analgesic which may help relieve these symptoms.\nObjectives\nTo determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers in November 2020. We applied no language, document type or publication status limitations to the search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo, an alternative opioid or another active control, for cancer pain in adults and children. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain intensity and pain relief; secondary outcomes were specific adverse events, serious adverse events, quality of life, leaving the study early and death.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model and assessed risk of bias for all included studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three summary of findings tables.\nMain results\nWith four new identified studies, the review includes a total of eight studies (1283 participants, with data for 1181 participants available for analysis), which compared hydromorphone with oxycodone (four studies), morphine (three studies) or fentanyl (one study). All studies included adults with cancer pain, mean age ranged around 53 to 59 years and the proportion of men ranged from 42% to 67.4%. We judged all the studies at high risk of bias overall because they had at least one domain with high risk of bias.\nWe found no studies including children. We did not complete a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of pain intensity due to skewed data and different comparators investigated across the studies (oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl).\nComparison 1: hydromorphone compared with placebo\nWe identified no studies comparing hydromorphone with placebo.\nComparison 2: hydromorphone compared with oxycodone\nParticipant-reported pain intensity\nWe found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 381 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nParticipant-reported pain relief\nWe found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief.\nSpecific adverse events\nWe found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.94; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 441 participants) and constipation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; 622 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain.\nQuality of life\nWe found no studies reporting quality of life.\nComparison 3: hydromorphone compared with morphine\nParticipant-reported pain intensity\nWe found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 433 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nParticipant-reported pain relief\nWe found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of clinically improved participants, defined by 50% or greater pain relief rate, in the hydromorphone group compared with the morphine group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nSpecific adverse events\nAt 24 days of treatment, morphine may reduce constipation compared with hydromorphone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.17; 1 RCT, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 1 RCT, 200 participants), vomiting (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 200 participants) and dizziness (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 1 RCT, 200 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain.\nQuality of life\nWe found no studies reporting quality of life.\nComparison 4: hydromorphone compared with fentanyl\nParticipant-reported pain intensity\nWe found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured by numerical rating scale (NRS)) at 60 minutes in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with fentanyl, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nParticipant-reported pain relief\nWe found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief.\nSpecific adverse events\nWe found no studies reporting specific adverse events.\nQuality of life\nWe found no studies reporting quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other analgesics is very uncertain. The studies reported some adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear evidence of a difference between hydromorphone and morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl for this outcome.\nThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of hydromorphone for cancer pain in comparison with other analgesics on the reported outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review includes eight studies (four new studies included in this updated version) with 1283 participants comparing hydromorphone with oxycodone, morphine or fentanyl in adults (aged 18 years and above) with moderate to severe cancer pain. None of the studies compared hydromorphone and placebo. None of the studies included children.\nWe found no differences in pain intensity scores between the different treatment groups and on average patients reported low levels of pain after opioid administration. Hydromorphone seemed to work as well as morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl. There were some side effects, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear difference between people taking hydromorphone and people taking morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3346 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis article describes the second update of a Cochrane review on the effectiveness of laxatives for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care. Previous versions were published in 2006 and 2010 where we also evaluated trials of methylnaltrexone; these trials have been removed as they are included in another review in press. In these earlier versions, we drew no conclusions on individual effectiveness of different laxatives because of the limited number of evaluations. This is despite constipation being common in palliative care, generating considerable suffering due to the unpleasant physical symptoms and the availability of a wide range of laxatives with known differences in effect in other populations.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and differential efficacy of laxatives used to manage constipation in people receiving palliative care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science (SCI & CPCI-S) for trials to September 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating laxatives for constipation in people receiving palliative care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the studies depended upon clinical and outcome measure homogeneity.\nMain results\nWe identified five studies involving the laxatives lactulose, senna, co-danthramer, misrakasneham, docusate and magnesium hydroxide with liquid paraffin. Overall, the study findings were at an unclear risk of bias. As all five studies compared different laxatives or combinations of laxatives, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. There was no evidence on whether individual laxatives were more effective than others or caused fewer adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis second update found that laxatives were of similar effectiveness but the evidence remains limited due to insufficient data from a few small RCTs. None of the studies evaluated polyethylene glycol or any intervention given rectally. There is a need for more trials to evaluate the effectiveness of laxatives in palliative care populations. Extrapolating findings on the effectiveness of laxatives evaluated in other populations should proceed with caution. This is because of the differences inherent in people receiving palliative care that may impact, in a likely negative way, on the effect of a laxative.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched medical databases for clinical trials of the use of laxatives for constipation in people receiving palliative care. Two review authors assessed study quality and extracted data."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3347 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLow-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and heparinoids are anticoagulants that may have more powerful antithrombotic effects than standard unfractionated heparin (UFH) but a lower risk of bleeding complications. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review of these agents, first published in 2001 and last updated in 2008.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether antithrombotic therapy with LMWHs or heparinoids is associated with a reduction in the proportion of people who are dead or dependent for activities in daily living compared with UFH.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: the Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2017), and Embase (1980 to February 2017). We also searched trials registers to February 2017: ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, Stroke Trials Registry, ISRCTN Registry and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.\nSelection criteria\nUnconfounded randomised trials comparing LMWH or heparinoids with standard UFH in people with acute ischaemic stroke, in which participants were recruited within 14 days of stroke onset.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently chose studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and trial quality, extracted and analysed the data. Differences were resolved by discussion.\nMain results\nWe included nine trials involving 3137 participants. We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this updated review. None of the studies reported data on the primary outcome in sufficient detail to enable analysis for the review. Overall, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included studies. Compared with UFH, there was no evidence of an effect of LMWH or heparinoids on death from all causes during the treatment period (96/1616 allocated LMWH/heparinoid versus 78/1486 allocated UFH; odds ratio (OR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.47; 8 trials, 3102 participants, low quality evidence). LMWH or heparinoid were associated with a significant reduction in deep vein thrombosis (DVT) compared with UFH (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.70, 7 trials, 2585 participants, low quality evidence). However, the number of the major clinical events such as pulmonary embolism (PE) and intracranial haemorrhage was too small to provide a reliable estimate of the effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTreatment with a LMWH or heparinoid after acute ischaemic stroke appears to decrease the occurrence of DVT compared with standard UFH, but there are too few data to provide reliable information on their effects on other important outcomes, including functional outcome, death and intracranial haemorrhage.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review aimed to find out which type of blood-thinning drug works best for preventing blood clots in people who have recently had a stroke due to blockage of an artery in the brain."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3348 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChoroidal neovascularisation (CNV) is a common complication of pathological myopia. Once developed, most eyes with myopic CNV (mCNV) experience a progression to macular atrophy, which leads to irreversible vision loss. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy is used to treat diseases characterised by neovascularisation and is increasingly used to treat mCNV.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for choroidal neovascularisation (CNV), compared with other treatments, sham treatment or no treatment, in people with pathological myopia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched a number of electronic databases including CENTRAL and Ovid MEDLINE, 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 searches for trials. Electronic databases were last searched on 16 June 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing anti-VEGF therapy with another treatment (e.g. photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin, laser photocoagulation, macular surgery, another anti-VEGF), sham treatment or no treatment in participants with mCNV.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We analysed outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nThe present review included six studies which provided data on the comparison between anti-VEGF with PDT, laser, sham treatment and another anti-VEGF treatment, with 594 participants with mCNV. Three trials compared bevacizumab or ranibizumab with PDT, one trial compared bevacizumab with laser, one trial compared aflibercept with sham treatment, and two trials compared bevacizumab with ranibizumab. Pharmaceutical companies conducted two trials. The trials were conducted at multiple clinical centres across three continents (Europe, Asia and North America). In all these six trials, one eye for each participant was included in the study.\nWhen compared with PDT, people treated with anti-VEGF agents (ranibizumab (one RCT), bevacizumab (two RCTs)), were more likely to regain vision. At one year of follow-up, the mean visual acuity (VA) in participants treated with anti-VEGFs was -0.14 logMAR better, equivalent of seven Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, compared with people treated with PDT (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to -0.08, 3 RCTs, 263 people, low-certainty evidence). The RR for proportion of participants gaining 3+ lines of VA was 1.86 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.73, 2 RCTs, 226 people, moderate-certainty evidence). At two years, the mean VA in people treated with anti-VEGFs was -0.26 logMAR better, equivalent of 13 ETDRS letters, compared with people treated with PDT (95% CI -0.38 to -0.14, 2 RCTs, 92 people, low-certainty evidence). The RR for proportion of people gaining 3+ lines of VA at two years was 3.43 (95% CI 1.37 to 8.56, 2 RCTs, 92 people, low-certainty evidence). People treated with anti-VEGFs showed no obvious reduction (improvement) in central retinal thickness at one year compared with people treated with PDT (MD -17.84 μm, 95% CI -41.98 to 6.30, 2 RCTs, 226 people, moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that people treated with anti-VEGF were more likely to have CNV angiographic closure at 1 year (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.54, 2 RCTs, 208 people). One study allowed ranibizumab treatment as of month 3 in participants randomised to PDT, which may have led to an underestimate of the benefits of anti-VEGF treatment.\nWhen compared with laser photocoagulation, there was more improvement in VA among bevacizumab-treated people than among laser-treated people after one year (MD -0.22 logMAR, equivalent of 11 ETDRS letters, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.01, 1 RCT, 36 people, low-certainty evidence) and after two years (MD -0.29 logMAR, equivalent of 14 ETDRS letters, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.08, 1 RCT, 36 people, low-certainty evidence).\nWhen compared with sham treatment, people treated with aflibercept had better vision at one year (MD -0.19 logMAR, equivalent of 9 ETDRS letters, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.12, 1 RCT, 121 people, moderate-certainty evidence). The fact that this study allowed for aflibercept treatment at 6 months in the control group might cause an underestimation of the benefit with anti-VEGF.\nPeople treated with ranibizumab had similar improvement in VA recovery compared with people treated with bevacizumab after one year (MD -0.02 logMAR, equivalent of 1 ETDRS letter, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.06, 2 RCTs, 80 people, moderate-certainty evidence).\nOf the included six studies, two studies reported no adverse events in either group and two industry-sponsored studies reported both systemic and ocular adverse events. In the control group, there were no systemic or ocular adverse events reported in 149 participants. Fifteen people reported systemic serious adverse events among 359 people treated with anti-VEGF agents (15/359, 4.2%). Five people reported ocular adverse events among 359 people treated with anti-VEGF agents (5/359, 1.4%). The number of adverse events was low, and the estimate of RR was uncertain regarding systemic serious adverse events (4 RCTs, 15 events in 508 people, RR 4.50, 95% CI 0.60 to 33.99, very low-certainty evidence) and serious ocular adverse events (4 RCTs, 5 events in 508 people, RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.23 to 14.71, very low-certainty evidence). There were no reports of mortality or cases of endophthalmitis or retinal detachment.\nThere was sparse reporting of data for vision-related quality of life (in favour of anti-VEGF) in only one trial at one year of follow-up. The studies did not report data for other outcomes, such as percentage of participants with newly developed chorioretinal atrophy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low to moderate-certainty evidence from RCTs for the efficacy of anti-VEGF agents to treat mCNV at one year and two years. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests ranibizumab and bevacizumab are equivalent in terms of efficacy. Adverse effects occurred rarely and the trials included here were underpowered to assess these. Future research should be focused on the efficacy and safety of different drugs and treatment regimens, the efficacy on different location of mCNV, as well as the effects on practice in the real world.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The Cochrane researchers searched for studies that had been published up to 16 June 2016."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3349 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic heart failure (HF) is a growing global health challenge. People with HF experience substantial burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous (2014) Cochrane systematic review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission among people with HF, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane Review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with HF with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in the hospital/centre-based setting.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of people with heart failure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 29 January 2018. We also checked the bibliographies of systematic reviews and two trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with six months' or longer follow-up versus a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults (> 18 years) with evidence of HF - either HFrEF or HFpEF.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible for inclusion in the review. We obtained full papers of potentially relevant trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials, assessed their risk of bias, and performed GRADE analyses.\nMain results\nWe included 44 trials (5783 participants with HF) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 11 new trials (N = 1040), in addition to the previously identified 33 trials. Although the evidence base includes predominantly patients with HFrEF with New York Heart Association classes II and III receiving centre-based exercise-based CR programmes, a growing body of studies include patients with HFpEF and are undertaken in a home-based setting. All included studies included a no formal exercise training intervention comparator. However, a wide range of comparators were seen across studies that included active intervention (i.e. education, psychological intervention) or usual medical care alone. The overall risk of bias of included trials was low or unclear, and we downgraded results using the GRADE tool for all but one outcome.\nCardiac rehabilitation may make little or no difference in all-cause mortality over the short term (≤ one year of follow-up) (27 trials, 28 comparisons (2596 participants): intervention 67/1302 (5.1%) vs control 75/1294 (5.8%); risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.21; low-quality GRADE evidence) but may improve all-cause mortality in the long term (> 12 months follow up) (6 trials/comparisons (2845 participants): intervention 244/1418 (17.2%) vs control 280/1427 (19.6%) events): RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; high-quality evidence). Researchers provided no data on deaths due to HF. CR probably reduces overall hospital admissions in the short term (up to one year of follow-up) (21 trials, 21 comparisons (2182 participants): (intervention 180/1093 (16.5%) vs control 258/1089 (23.7%); RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83; moderate-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 14) and may reduce HF-specific hospitalisation (14 trials, 15 comparisons (1114 participants): (intervention 40/562 (7.1%) vs control 61/552 (11.1%) RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; low-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 25). After CR, a clinically important improvement in short-term disease-specific health-related quality of life may be evident (Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire - 17 trials, 18 comparisons (1995 participants): mean difference (MD) -7.11 points, 95% CI -10.49 to -3.73; low-quality evidence). Pooling across all studies, regardless of the HRQoL measure used, shows there may be clinically important improvement with exercise (26 trials, 29 comparisons (3833 participants); standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.60, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.39; I² = 87%; Chi² = 215.03; low-quality evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent different models of ExCR delivery: centre vs. home-based, exercise dose, exercise only vs. comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone vs aerobic plus resistance programmes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated Cochrane Review provides additional randomised evidence (11 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous version (2014) of this Cochane Review. Compared to no exercise control, CR appears to have no impact on mortality in the short term (< 12 months' follow-up). Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that CR probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and may reduce HF-specific hospital admissions in the short term (up to 12 months). CR may confer a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life, although we remain uncertain about this because the evidence is of low quality. Future ExCR trials need to continue to consider the recruitment of traditionally less represented HF patient groups including older, female, and HFpEF patients, and alternative CR delivery settings including home- and using technology-based programmes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the scientific literature for randomised controlled trials (experiments in which two or more interventions, possibly including a control intervention or no intervention, are compared by randomly allocating participants to study groups). We looked at the effectiveness of exercise-based rehabilitation compared with no exercise in adults (over 18 years of age) with heart failure. We considered HF due to reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (i.e. the chambers of the heart contract poorly, and, as a result, a smaller volume of blood is pumped around the body). We also considered HF due to preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (i.e. the chambers of the heart contract normally but do not relax efficiently, resulting in a smaller volume of blood pumped around the body). Our search is current to January 2018."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3350 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAbout 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.\nObjectives\n• In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC\n- To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA)\n- To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy\n• In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC\n- To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis\n- To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nWe expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.\nMain results\nHighly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)\nWe included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids.\nComplete control of vomiting during the overall phase\nWe estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98 to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).\nNetupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.\nEvidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty).\nWe could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.\nSerious adverse events\nWe estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty).\nEvidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.\nWe could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.\nModerately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC)\nWe included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids.\nComplete control of vomiting during the overall phase\nWe estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).\nPalonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron.\nEvidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty).\nWe could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.\nSerious adverse events\nWe estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.\nCertainty of evidence\nOur main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed.\nFor people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.\nFor people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.\nWhen interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Harms.\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We estimated that 1% to 4% of people experience serious side effects. The differences between treatments were small."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3351 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nKidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage kidney disease. In a previous review we concluded that the routine use of ureteric stents in kidney transplantation reduces the incidence of major urological complications (MUC). Unfortunately, this reduction appears to lead to a concomitant rise in urinary tract infections (UTI). For kidney recipients UTI is now the commonest post-transplant complication. This represents a considerable risk to the immunosuppressed transplant recipient, particularly in the era of increased immunologically challenging transplants. There are a number of different approaches taken when considering ureteric stenting and these are associated with differing degrees of morbidity and hospital cost.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of early versus late removal of the ureteric stent in kidney transplant recipients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 27 March 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nAll RCTs and quasi-RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. We included recipients of kidney transplants regardless of demography (adults or children) or the type of stent used.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors reviewed the identified studies to ascertain if they met inclusion criteria. We designated removal of a ureteric stent before the third postoperative week (< day 15) or during the index transplant admission as \"early\" removal. The studies were assessed for quality using the risk of bias tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MUC. Further outcomes of interest were the incidence of UTI, idiosyncratic stent-related complications, hospital-related costs and adverse events. A subgroup analysis was performed examining the difference in complications reported depending on the type of ureteric stent used; bladder indwelling (BI) versus per-urethral (PU). Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nFive studies (1127 patients) were included in our analysis. Generally the risk of bias of the included studies was judged low or unclear; they addressed the research question and utilised a prospective randomised design. It is uncertain whether early stent removal verus late stent removal improved the incidence of MUC (5 studies, 1127 participants: RR 1.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.71; I2 = 21%; low certainty evidence). The incidence of UTI may be reduced in the early stent removal group (5 studies, 1127 participants: RR 0.49 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; I2 = 59%; moderate certainty evidence). This possible reduction in the UTI incidence was only apparent if a BI stent was used, (3 studies, 539 participants, RR 0.45 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; I2 = 13%; moderate certainty evidence). However, if an externalised PU stent was used there was no discernible difference in UTI incidence between the early and late group (2 studies, 588 participants: RR 0.60 95% CI 0.17, 2.03; I2 = 83%; low certainty evidence). Data on health economics and quality of life outcomes were lacking.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEarly removal of ureteric stents following kidney transplantation may reduce the incidence of UTI while it uncertain if there is a higher risk of MUC. BI stents are the optimum method for achieving this benefit.\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": "This study was designed to review all the previously published research in this area to determine the answer to this question. Five studies including 1097 patients were identified."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3352 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTotal knee replacement (TKR) is a common intervention for people with end-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, resulting in significant improvements in pain, function and quality of life within three to six months. It is, however, acutely associated with pain, local oedema and blood loss. Post-operative management may include cryotherapy. This is the application of low temperatures to the skin surrounding the surgical site, through ice or cooled water, often delivered using specialised devices. This is an update of a review published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effect of cryotherapy in the acute phase after TKR (within 48 hours after surgery) on blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, range of motion, knee function, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers, as well as reference lists, related links and conference proceedings on 27 May 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing cryotherapy with or without other treatments (such as compression, regional nerve block or continuous passive motion) to no treatment, or the other treatment alone, following TKR for osteoarthritis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We discussed any disagreements and consulted another review author to resolve them, if required. Major outcomes were blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, knee range of motion, knee function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. Minor outcomes were analgesia use, knee swelling, length of stay, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success.\nMain results\nWe included 22 trials (20 randomised trials and two controlled clinical trials), with 1839 total participants. The mean ages reflected the TKR population, ranging from 64 to 74 years.\nCryotherapy with compression was compared to no treatment in four studies, and to compression alone in nine studies. Cryotherapy without compression was compared to no treatment in eight studies. One study compared cryotherapy without compression to control with compression alone. We combined all control interventions in the primary analysis.\nCertainty of evidence was low for blood loss (downgraded for bias and inconsistency), pain (downgraded twice for bias) and range of motion (downgraded for bias and indirectness). It was very low for transfusion rate (downgraded for bias, inconsistency and imprecision), function (downgraded twice for bias and once for inconsistency), total adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision) and withdrawals from adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision). The nature of cryotherapy made blinding difficult and most studies had a high risk of performance and detection bias.\nLow-certainty evidence from 12 trials (956 participants) shows that cryotherapy may reduce blood loss at one to 13 days after surgery. Blood loss was 825 mL with no cryotherapy and 561 mL with cryotherapy: mean difference (MD) 264 mL less (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 mL less to 516 mL less).\nLow-certainty evidence from six trials (530 participants) shows that cryotherapy may slightly improve pain at 48 hours on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (lower scores indicate less pain). Pain was 4.8 points with no cryotherapy and 3.16 points with cryotherapy: MD 1.6 points lower (95% CI 2.3 lower to 1.0 lower).\nWe are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate at zero to 13 days after surgery. The transfusion rate was 37% with no cryotherapy and 79% with cryotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 2.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 109.63; 2 trials, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nLow-certainty evidence from three trials (174 participants) indicates cryotherapy may improve range of motion at discharge: it was 62.9 degrees with no cryotherapy and 71.2 degrees with cryotherapy: MD 8.3 degrees greater (95% CI 3.6 degrees more to 13.1 degrees more).\nWe are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves function two weeks after surgery. Function was 75.4 points on the 0- to 100-point Dutch Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scale (lower score indicates worse function) in the control group and 88.6 points with cryotherapy (MD 13.2 points better, 95% CI 0.5 worse to 27.1 improved; 4 trials, 296 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces total adverse events: the risk ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.20; 16 trials, 1199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included discomfort, local skin reactions, superficial infections, cold-induced injuries and thrombolytic events.\nWe are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces withdrawals from adverse events (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 17.38; 19 trials, 1347 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nNo significant benefit was found for secondary outcomes of analgesia use, length of stay, activity level or quality of life. Evidence from seven studies (403 participants) showed improved mid-patella swelling between two and six days after surgery (MD 7.32 mm less, 95% CI 11.79 to 2.84 lower), though not at six weeks and three months after surgery. The included studies did not assess participant-reported global assessment of success.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe certainty of evidence was low for blood loss, pain and range of motion, and very low for transfusion rate, function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate, function, total adverse events or withdrawals from adverse events. We downgraded evidence for bias, indirectness, imprecision and inconsistency. Hence, the potential benefits of cryotherapy on blood loss, pain and range of motion may be too small to justify its use. More well-designed randomised controlled trials focusing especially on clinically meaningful outcomes, such as blood transfusion, and patient-reported outcomes, such as knee function, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success, are 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": "We have little confidence in the evidence showing that cold therapy may slightly improve blood loss, pain and range of motion after surgery. We are uncertain if it lowers the risk of a blood transfusion, improves knee function, increases the risk of adverse events or contributed to withdrawals due to adverse events. Factors that decreased our confidence include flaws in the study design (participants were not assigned to treatments randomly; some participants dropped out of the study; participants could tell what treatment they were receiving), not having enough studies or participants to be certain about the results, and variations between studies in results and methods."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3353 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfectious mononucleosis (IM) is a clinical syndrome, usually caused by the Epstein Barr virus (EPV), characterised by lymphadenopathy, fever and sore throat. Most cases of symptomatic IM occur in older teenagers or young adults. Usually IM is a benign self-limiting illness and requires only symptomatic treatment. However, occasionally the disease course can be complicated or prolonged and lead to decreased productivity in terms of school or work. Antiviral medications have been used to treat IM, but the use of antivirals for IM is controversial. They may be effective by preventing viral replication which helps to keep the virus inactive. However, there are no guidelines for antivirals in IM.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antiviral therapy for infectious mononucleosis (IM).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, March 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to 15 April 2016), Embase (1974 to 15 April 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 April 2016), LILACS (1982 to 15 April 2016) and Web of Science (1955 to 15 April 2016). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antivirals versus placebo or no treatment in IM. We included trials of immunocompetent participants of any age or sex with clinical and laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of IM, who had symptoms for up to 14 days. Our primary outcomes were time to clinical recovery and adverse events and side effects of medication. Secondary outcomes included duration of abnormal clinical examination, complications, viral shedding, health-related quality of life, days missing from school or work and economic outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies' risk of bias and extracted data using a customised data extraction sheet. We used the GRADE criteria to rate the quality of the evidence. We pooled heterogeneous data where possible, and presented the results narratively where we could not statistically combine data.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs with a total of 333 participants in our review. Three trials studied hospitalised patients, two trials were conducted in an outpatient setting, while the trial setting was unclear in two studies. Participants' ages ranged from two years to young adults. The type of antiviral, administration route, and treatment duration varied between the trials. The antivirals in the included studies were acyclovir, valomaciclovir and valacyclovir. Follow-up varied from 20 days to six months. The diagnosis of IM was based on clinical symptoms and laboratory parameters.\nThe risk of bias for all included studies was either unclear or high risk of bias. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes and so the results should be interpreted with caution. There were statistically significant improvements in the treatment group for two of the 12 outcomes. These improvements may be of limited clinical significance.\nThere was a mean reduction in 'time to clinical recovery as assessed by physician' of five days in the treatment group but with wide confidence intervals (CIs) (95% CI -8.04 to -1.08; two studies, 87 participants). Prospective studies indicate that clinical signs and symptoms may take one month or more to resolve and that fatigue may be persistent in approximately 10% of patients at six-month follow-up, so this may not be a clinically meaningful result.\nTrial results for the outcome 'adverse events and side effects of medication' were reported narratively in only five studies. In some reports authors were unsure whether an adverse event was related to medication or complication of disease. These results could not be pooled due to the potential for double counting results but overall, the majority of trials reporting this outcome did not find any significant difference between treatment and control groups.\nThere was a mean reduction in 'duration of lymphadenopathy' of nine days (95% CI -11.75 to -6.14, two studies, 61 participants) in favour of the treatment group.\nIn terms of viral shedding, the overall effect from six studies was that viral shedding was suppressed while on antiviral treatment, but this effect was not sustained when treatment stopped.\nFor all other outcomes there was no statistically significant difference between antiviral treatment and control groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effectiveness of antiviral agents (acyclovir, valomaciclovir and valacyclovir) in acute IM is uncertain. The quality of the evidence is very low. The majority of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias and so questions remain about the effectiveness of this intervention. Although two of the 12 outcomes have results that favour treatment over control, the quality of the evidence of these results is very low and may not be clinically meaningful. Alongside the lack of evidence of effectiveness, decision makers need to consider the potential adverse events and possible associated costs, and antiviral resistance. Further research in this area is warranted.\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 wanted to investigate several outcomes: time to recovery; medication side effects; duration of: fever, sore throat, swollen lymph nodes, enlarged spleen and liver; development of glandular fever complications; how long it took to eliminate the virus from the throat; health-related quality of life; days off school or work; and economic outcomes.\nWe found improvements in participants who received antiviral for two outcomes.\nThere was an improvement of five days in time taken to recover among people who received antiviral treatment, but this result was not very precise, and the way it was measured was not clearly defined. Other studies show that glandular fever symptoms can take a month or more to get better, and tiredness may occur in about one in every 10 of patients six months later. This improvement may be of limited clinical significance.\nMost studies that examined adverse effects did not find any differences between people who received antivirals and those who did not.\nTime taken to resolve lymph node swelling improved to nine days when antivirals were used. However, studies that reported on this, measured lymph node swelling in different ways so we cannot be sure about the accuracy of the result."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3354 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDown's syndrome occurs when a person has three, rather than two copies of chromosome 21; or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. It can be life-threatening, or lead to considerable ill health, although some individuals have only mild problems and can lead relatively normal lives. Having a baby with Down’s syndrome is likely to have a significant impact on family life.\nNoninvasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing. However, no test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down’s syndrome will have.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this review was to estimate and compare the accuracy of first trimester serum markers for the detection of Down’s syndrome in the antenatal period, both as individual markers and as combinations of markers. Accuracy is described by the proportion of fetuses with Down’s syndrome detected by screening before birth (sensitivity or detection rate) and the proportion of women with a low risk (normal) screening test result who subsequently had a baby unaffected by Down's syndrome (specificity).\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 25 August 2011), MEDION (25 August 2011), The Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), The National Research Register (Archived 2007), Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did forward citation searching ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed ‘related articles’. We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We also searched reference lists and published review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies in which all women from a given population had one or more index test(s) compared to a reference standard (either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection). Both consecutive series and diagnostic case-control study designs were included. Randomised trials where individuals were randomised to different screening strategies and all verified using a reference standard were also eligible for inclusion. Studies in which test strategies were compared head-to-head either in the same women, or between randomised groups were identified for inclusion in separate comparisons of test strategies. We excluded studies if they included less than five Down's syndrome cases, or more than 20% of participants were not followed up.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data as test positive or test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods or random-effects logistic regression methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy as appropriate. Analyses of studies allowing direct and indirect comparisons between tests were undertaken.\nMain results\nWe included 56 studies (reported in 68 publications) involving 204,759 pregnancies (including 2113 with Down's syndrome). Studies were generally of good quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. We evaluated 78 test combinations formed from combinations of 18 different tests, with or without maternal age; ADAM12 (a disintegrin and metalloprotease), AFP (alpha-fetoprotein), inhibin, PAPP-A (pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, ITA (invasive trophoblast antigen), free βhCG (beta human chorionic gonadotrophin), PlGF (placental growth factor), SP1 (Schwangerschafts protein 1), total hCG, progesterone, uE3 (unconjugated oestriol), GHBP (growth hormone binding protein), PGH (placental growth hormone), hyperglycosylated hCG, ProMBP (proform of eosinophil major basic protein), hPL (human placental lactogen), (free αhCG, and free ßhCG to AFP ratio. Direct comparisons between two or more tests were made in 27 studies.\nMeta-analysis of the nine best performing or frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a double marker combination of PAPP-A and free ßhCG significantly outperformed the individual markers (with or without maternal age) detecting about seven out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate (FPR). Limited evidence suggested that marker combinations involving PAPP-A may be more sensitive than those without PAPP-A.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTests involving two markers in combination with maternal age, specifically PAPP-A, free βhCG and maternal age are significantly better than those involving single markers with and without age. They detect seven out of 10 Down's affected pregnancies for a fixed 5% FPR. The addition of further markers (triple tests) has not been shown to be statistically superior; the studies included are small with limited power to detect a difference.\nThe screening blood tests themselves have no adverse effects for the woman, over and above the risks of a routine blood test. However some women who have a ‘high risk’ screening test result, and are given amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) have a risk of miscarrying a baby unaffected by Down’s. Parents will need to weigh up this risk when deciding whether or not to have an amniocentesis or CVS following a ‘high risk’ screening test result.\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": "Down's syndrome (also known as Down's or Trisomy 21) is an incurable genetic disorder that causes significant physical and mental health problems, and disabilities. However, there is wide variation in how Down's affects people. Some individuals are severely affected whilst others have mild problems and are able to lead relatively normal lives. There is no way of predicting how badly a baby might be affected.Expectant parents are given the choice to be tested for Down’s during pregnancy to assist them in making decisions. If a mother is carrying a baby with Down’s, then there is the decision about whether to terminate or continue with the pregnancy. The information offers parents the opportunity to plan for life with a Down’s child.The most accurate tests for Down’s involve testing fluid from around the baby (amniocentesis) or tissue from the placenta (chorionic villus sampling (CVS)) for the abnormal chromosomes associated with Down’s. Both these tests involve inserting needles through the mother's abdomen and are known to increase the risk of miscarriage. Thus, the tests are not suitable for offering to all pregnant women. Rather, tests that measure markers in the mother’s blood, urine or on ultrasound scans of the baby are used for screening. These screening tests are not perfect, they can miss cases of Down’s and also give a ‘high risk’ test result to a number of women whose babies are not affected by Down’s. Thus, pregnancies identified as ‘high risk’ using these screening tests require further testing using amniocentesis or CVS to confirm a diagnosis of Down’s."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3355 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous thromboembolism (VTE), which comprises deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the leading cause of preventable death in hospitalised people and the third most common cause of mortality in surgical patients. People undergoing bariatric surgery have the additional risk factor of being overweight. Although VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients is well established, the best way to prevent VTE in those undergoing bariatric surgery is less clear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions (alone or in combination) on venous thromboembolism and other health outcomes in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention or started at a different time point, another pharmacological intervention, no intervention or placebo.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 1 November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in males and females of any age undergoing bariatric surgery comparing pharmacological interventions for VTE (alone or in combination) with the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention started at a different time point, a different pharmacological intervention, no treatment or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. VTE and 2. major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. VTE-related mortality, 3. PE, 4. DVT, 5. adverse effects and 6. quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs with 1045 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all participants.\nFour RCTs (597 participants) compared higher-dose heparin to standard-dose heparin: one of these studies (139 participants) used unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the other three (458 participants) used low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). One study compared heparin versus pentasaccharide (198 participants), and one study compared starting heparin before versus after bariatric surgery (100 participants). One study (150 participants) compared combined mechanical and pharmacological (enoxaparin) prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone. The duration of the interventions ranged from seven to 15 days, and follow-up ranged from 10 to 180 days.\nHigher-dose heparin versus standard-dose heparin\nCompared to standard-dose heparin, higher-dose heparin may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.99; 4 studies, 597 participants) or major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.96; I2 = 8%; 4 studies, 597 participants; low-certainty) in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on all-cause mortality, VTE-related mortality, PE, DVT and adverse events (thrombocytopenia) is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence).\nHeparin versus pentasaccharide\nHeparin compared to a pentasaccharide after bariatric surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants) or DVT (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, PE and mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence).\nHeparin started before versus after the surgical procedure\nStarting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before surgery versus after surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants) or DVT (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, all-cause mortality and VTE-related mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on PE or adverse effects, as the study did not measure these outcomes.\nCombined mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone\nCombining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on major bleeding or morality (effect not estimable), or on PE or adverse events (not measured).\nNo studies measured quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigher-dose heparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism or major bleeding in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to standard-dose heparin.\nHeparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to pentasaccharide. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin compared to pentasaccharide on major bleeding.\nStarting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before bariatric surgery may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to starting heparin after bariatric surgery. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin started before versus after surgery on major bleeding.\nCombining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone. No data are available relating to major bleeding.\nThe certainty of the evidence is limited by small sample sizes, few or no events, and risk of bias concerns. Future trials must be sufficiently large to enable analysis of relevant clinical outcomes, and should standardise the time of treatment and follow-up. They should also address the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets, preferably grouping them according to the type of intervention.\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 assess whether any pharmacological intervention can prevent VTE in people undergoing bariatric surgery, and whether these interventions are safe."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3356 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable severe vision loss in people aged 55 years and older in the developed world. Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD accounts for most cases of AMD-related severe vision loss. Intravitreous injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents aims to block the growth of abnormal blood vessels in the eye to prevent vision loss and, in some instances, to improve vision.\nObjectives\n• To investigate ocular and systemic effects of, and quality of life associated with, intravitreous injection of three anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) versus no anti-VEGF treatment for patients with neovascular AMD\n• To compare the relative effects of one of these anti-VEGF agents versus another when administered in comparable dosages and regimens\nSearch methods\nTo identify eligible studies for this review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (searched January 31, 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to January 31, 2018); Embase Ovid (1947 to January 31, 2018); the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to January 31, 2018); the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch - searched January 31, 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov - searched November 28, 2018); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en - searched January 31, 2018). We did not impose any date or language restrictions in electronic searches for trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab versus each other or versus a control treatment (e.g. sham treatment, photodynamic therapy), in which participants were followed for at least one year.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We compared outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 16 RCTs that had enrolled a total of 6347 participants with neovascular AMD (the number of participants per trial ranged from 23 to 1208) and identified one potentially relevant ongoing trial. Six trials compared anti-VEGF treatment (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab) versus control, and 10 trials compared bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Pharmaceutical companies conducted or sponsored four trials but funded none of the studies that evaluated bevacizumab. Researchers conducted these trials at various centers across five continents (North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia). The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate to high, and most trials had an overall low risk of bias. All but one trial had been registered prospectively.\nWhen compared with those who received control treatment, more participants who received intravitreous injection of any of the three anti-VEGF agents had gained 15 letters or more of visual acuity (risk ratio [RR] 4.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.32 to 7.55; moderate-certainty evidence), had lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.55; high-certainty evidence), and showed mean improvement in visual acuity (mean difference 6.7 letters, 95% CI 4.4 to 9.0 in one pegaptanib trial; mean difference 17.8 letters, 95% CI 16.0 to 19.7 in three ranibizumab trials; moderate-certainty evidence) after one year of follow-up. Participants treated with anti-VEGF agents showed improvement in morphologic outcomes (e.g. size of CNV, central retinal thickness) compared with participants not treated with anti-VEGF agents (moderate-certainty evidence). No trial directly compared pegaptanib versus another anti-VEGF agent and followed participants for one year; however, when compared with control treatments, ranibizumab and bevacizumab each yielded larger improvements in visual acuity outcomes than pegaptanib.\nVisual acuity outcomes after bevacizumab and ranibizumab were similar when the same RCTs compared the same regimens with respect to gain of 15 or more letters of visual acuity (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and loss of fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence); results showed similar mean improvement in visual acuity (mean difference [MD] -0.5 letters, 95% CI -1.5 to 0.5; high-certainty evidence) after one year of follow-up, despite the substantially lower cost of bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab. Reduction in central retinal thickness was less among bevacizumab-treated participants than among ranibizumab-treated participants after one year (MD -11.6 μm, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.7; high-certainty evidence); however, this difference is within the range of measurement error, and we did not interpret it to be clinically meaningful.\nOcular inflammation and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) after intravitreal injection were the most frequently reported serious ocular adverse events. Researchers reported endophthalmitis in less than 1% of anti-VEGF-treated participants and in no cases among control groups. The occurrence of serious systemic adverse events was comparable across anti-VEGF-treated groups and control groups; however, the numbers of events and trial participants may have been insufficient to show a meaningful difference between groups (evidence of low- to moderate-certainty). Investigators rarely measured and reported data on visual function, quality of life, or economic outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults of this review show the effectiveness of anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) in terms of maintaining visual acuity; studies show that ranibizumab and bevacizumab improved visual acuity in some eyes that received these agents and were equally effective. Available information on the adverse effects of each medication does not suggest a higher incidence of potentially vision-threatening complications with intravitreous injection of anti-VEGF agents compared with control interventions; however, clinical trial sample sizes were not sufficient to estimate differences in rare safety outcomes. Future Cochrane Reviews should incorporate research evaluating variable dosing regimens of anti-VEGF agents, effects of long-term use, use of combination therapies (e.g. anti-VEGF treatment plus photodynamic therapy), and other methods of delivering these agents.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cochrane researchers searched for studies that had been published up to January 31, 2018."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3357 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables.\nMain results\nIn total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups.\nThe overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%).\nUsing GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency.\nFor participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) −5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.56 to −4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD −0.96, 95% CI −1.22 to −0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD −1.40, 95% CI −1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD −1.60, 95% CI −1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI −5.91 to −0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD −1.06, 95% CI −1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP.\nIn participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD −42.00, 95% CI −87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD −2.42, 95% CI −3.90 to −0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference −12.30%, 95% CI −25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32).\nIn palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI −1.19 to −0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low).\nMost adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDifferent interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is pruritus treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Depending on the cause, pruritus can be treated by pharmacological, non-pharmacological and topical interventions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3358 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with spatial neglect after stroke or other brain injury have difficulty attending to one side of space. Various rehabilitation interventions have been used, but evidence of their benefit is unclear.\nObjectives\nThe main objective was to determine the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for people with spatial neglect after stroke and other adult-acquired non-progressive brain injury.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched October 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; last searched October 2020), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2020), Embase (1980 to October 2020), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1983 to October 2020), and PsycINFO (1974 to October 2020). We also searched ongoing trials registers and screened reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any non-pharmacological intervention specifically aimed at spatial neglect. We excluded studies of general rehabilitation and studies with mixed participant groups, unless separate neglect data were available.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Review authors categorised the interventions into eight broad types deemed to be applicable to clinical practice through iterative discussion: visual interventions, prism adaptation, body awareness interventions, mental function interventions, movement interventions, non-invasive brain stimulation, electrical stimulation, and acupuncture. We assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 65 RCTs with 1951 participants, all of which included people with spatial neglect following stroke. Most studies measured outcomes using standardised neglect assessments. Fifty-one studies measured effects on ADL immediately after completion of the intervention period; only 16 reported persisting effects on ADL (our primary outcome). One study (30 participants) reported discharge destination, and one (24 participants) reported depression. No studies reported falls, balance, or quality of life. Only two studies were judged to be entirely at low risk of bias, and all were small, with fewer than 50 participants per group. We found no definitive (phase 3) clinical trials. None of the studies reported any patient or public involvement.\nVisual interventions versus any control: evidence is very uncertain about the effects of visual interventions for spatial neglect based on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL (2 studies, 55 participants) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57 to 0.49); measures of immediate functional ability in ADL; persisting standardised neglect assessments; and immediate neglect assessments.\nPrism adaptation versus any control: evidence is very uncertain about the effects of prism adaptation for spatial neglect based on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL (2 studies, 39 participants) (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.35); measures of immediate functional ability in ADL; persisting standardised neglect assessments; and immediate neglect assessments.\nBody awareness interventions versus any control: evidence is very uncertain about the effects of body awareness interventions for spatial neglect based on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL (5 studies, 125 participants) (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.97); measures of immediate functional ability in ADL; persisting standardised neglect assessments; immediate neglect assessments; and adverse events.\nMental function interventions versus any control: we found no trials of mental function interventions for spatial neglect reporting on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL. Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mental function interventions on spatial neglect based on measures of immediate functional ability in ADL and immediate neglect assessments.\nMovement interventions versus any control: we found no trials of movement interventions for spatial neglect reporting on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL. Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of body awareness interventions on spatial neglect based on measures of immediate functional ability in ADL and immediate neglect assessments.\nNon-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) versus any control: evidence is very uncertain about the effects of NIBS on spatial neglect based on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL (3 studies, 92 participants) (SMD 0.35, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.77); measures of immediate functional ability in ADL; persisting standardised neglect assessments; immediate neglect assessments; and adverse events.\nElectrical stimulation versus any control: we found no trials of electrical stimulation for spatial neglect reporting on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL. Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of electrical stimulation on spatial neglect based on immediate neglect assessments.\nAcupuncture versus any control: we found no trials of acupuncture for spatial neglect reporting on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL. Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of acupuncture on spatial neglect based on measures of immediate functional ability in ADL and immediate neglect assessments.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for spatial neglect in improving functional ability in ADL and increasing independence remains unproven. Many strategies have been proposed to aid rehabilitation of spatial neglect, but none has yet been sufficiently researched through high-quality fully powered randomised trials to establish potential or adverse effects. As a consequence, no rehabilitation approach can be supported or refuted based on current evidence from RCTs. As recommended by a number of national clinical guidelines, clinicians should continue to provide rehabilitation for neglect that enables people to meet their rehabilitation goals. Clinicians and stroke survivors should have the opportunity, and are strongly encouraged, to participate in research. Future studies need to have appropriate high-quality methodological design, delivery, and reporting to enable appraisal and interpretation of results. Future studies also must evaluate outcomes of importance to patients, such as persisting functional ability in ADL. One way to improve the quality of research is to involve people with experience with the condition in designing and running trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 65 studies involving 1951 participants.\nAll studies included participants with spatial neglect as a result of stroke. It is surprising that only one study included three participants with spatial neglect caused by another type of brain injury.\nAll studies included participants with right-sided damage to the brain; seven studies also included participants with left-sided damage.\nStudies were considered small, with 4 to 69 participants (average 30). Eight studies included 50 or more participants; four studies involved 10 or fewer.\nNone of the studies reported any patient or public involvement in how the studies were designed, conducted, or reported.\nWe categorised the studies into eight different types of treatments.\n• Visual treatment: 17 studies involving 398 participants explored visual treatments. All treatments encouraged eye movement or scanning by a range of methods including paper-based tasks, computer activities, and daily living activities.\n• Prism adaptation training: 8 studies involving 257 participants explored prism adaptation training. This involved participants wearing glasses with prism lenses during a pointing activity.\n• Body awareness treatments: 12 studies involving 447 participants explored body awareness treatments. These studies involved various physical, visual, or verbal prompting or cueing aimed at increasing awareness of the affected side.\n• Mental function treatments: 7 studies involving 170 participants explored treatments that focused on mental processing/thinking (e.g. mental imagery, virtual reality).\n• Movement treatments: 6 studies involving 220 participants explored treatments that used movement of the arm or the whole body. These included the use of robotics, visual and motor feedback, and restricting movement on the side of the body that was not affected.\n• Non-invasive brain stimulation: 17 studies involving 467 participants explored non-invasive brain stimulation. These involved different methods of applying electrical or magnetic stimulation to the skull to change brain activity.\n• Electrical stimulation: 8 studies involving 270 participants explored electrical stimulation to other parts of the body. These involved sending mild electrical impulses to a particular part of the body (e.g. the arm). Four different types of electrical stimulation were used.\n• Acupuncture: 2 studies involving 104 participants explored the use of acupuncture. These involved inserting thin needles into specific points in the body."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3359 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNumerous agents have been suggested for the symptomatic treatment of primary Raynaud's phenomenon. Apart from calcium channel blockers, which are considered to be the drugs of choice, evidence of the effects of alternative pharmacological treatments is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of drugs with vasodilator effects on primary Raynaud's phenomenon as determined by frequency, severity, and duration of vasospastic attacks; quality of life; adverse events; and Raynauds Condition Score.\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 the ClinicalTrials.gov trial register to November 16, 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials evaluating effects of oral, intravenous, and topical formulations of any drug with vasodilator effects on subjective symptoms, severity scores, and radiological outcomes in primary Raynaud's phenomenon. Treatment with calcium channel blockers was not assessed in this review, nor were these agents compared.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed studies using the Cochrane \"Risk of bias\" tool, and extracted study data. Outcomes of interest included frequency, severity, and duration of attacks; quality of life (QoL); adverse events (AEs); and the Raynaud Condition Score (RCS). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified seven new studies for this update. In total, we included 15 studies involving 635 participants. These studies compared different vasodilators to placebo. Individual studies used different methods and measures to report different outcomes.\nAngiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors\nCombining data from three studies revealed a possible small increase in the frequency of attacks per week after treatment (captopril or enalapril) compared to placebo (mean difference [MD] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in severity of attacks (MD -0.17, 95% CI -4.66 to 4.31; 34 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); duration of attacks (MD 0.54, 95% CI -2.42 to 1.34; 14 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence); or AEs (risk ratio [RR] 1.35, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.73; 46 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). QoL and RCS were not reported.\nAlpha blockers\nTwo studies used alpha blockers (buflomedil or moxisylyte). We were unable to combine data due to the way results were presented. Buflomedil probably reduced the frequency of attacks compared to placebo (MD -8.82, 95% CI -11.04 to -6.60; 31 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and may improve severity scores (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.30; moderate-certainty evidence). With moxisylyte, investigators reported fewer attacks (P < 0.02), less severe symptoms (P < 0.01), and shorter duration of attacks, but the clinical relevance of these results is unclear. No evidence of a difference in AEs between buflomedil and placebo groups was noted (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.28; 31 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More AEs were observed in participants in the moxisylyte group than in the placebo group.\nProstaglandin/prostacyclin analogues\nOne study compared beraprost versus placebo. There was no evidence of benefit for frequency (MD 2.00, 95% CI -0.35 to 4.35; 118 participants, low-certainty evidence) or severity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.22; 118 participants, low-certainty evidence) of attacks. Overall, more AEs were noted in the beraprost group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.42; 125 participants; low-certainty evidence). This study did not report on duration of attacks, QoL, or RCS.\nThromboxane synthase inhibitors\nOne study compared a thromboxane synthase inhibitor (dazoxiben) versus placebo. There was no evidence of benefit for frequency of attacks (MD 0.8, 95% CI -1.81 to 3.41; 6 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported in subgroup analyses of participants with primary Raynaud's phenomenon, and the study did not report on duration of attacks, severity of symptoms, QoL, or RCS.\nSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors\nOne study compared ketanserin with placebo. There may be a slight reduction in the number of attacks per week with ketanserin compared to placebo (MD -14.0, 95% CI -27.72 to -0.28; 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and reduced severity score (MD -133.00, 95% CI -162.40 to -103.60; 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence that ketanserin reduced the duration of attacks (MD -4.00, 95% CI -14.82 to 6.82; 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or that AEs were increased in either group (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.65; 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not report on QoL or RCS.\nNitrate/nitrate derivatives\nFour studies compared topical treatments of nitroglycerin or glyceryl trinitrate versus placebo, each reporting on limited outcomes. Meta-analysis demonstrated no evidence of effect on frequency of attacks per week (MD -1.57, 95% CI -4.31 to 1.17; 86 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool any data for the remaining outcomes.\nPhosphodiesterase inhibitors\nThree studies compared phosphodiesterase inhibitors (vardenafil, cilostazol or PF-00489791) to an equivalent placebo. Results showed no evidence of a difference in frequency of attacks (standardized MD [SMD] -0.05, 95% CI -6.71 to 6.61; 111 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), severity of attacks (MD -0.03, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.97; 111 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), duration of attacks (MD -1.60, 95% CI -7.51 to 4.31; 73 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence), or RCS (SMD -0.8, 95% CI -1.74 to 0.13; 79 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Study authors reported that 35% of participants on cilostazol complained of headaches, which were not reported in the placebo group. PF-00489791 caused 34 of 54 participants to experience AEs versus 43 of 102 participants receiving placebo (RR 1.49). Headache was most common, affecting 14 participants (PF-00489791) versus nine participants (placebo).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe included studies investigated several different vasodilators (topical and oral) for treatment of primary Raynaud's phenomenon. Small sample sizes, limited data, and variability in outcome reporting yielded evidence of very low to moderate certainty. Evidence is insufficient to support the use of vasodilators and suggests that vasodilator use may even worsen disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Reliability of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We have very low to moderate confidence in these results, so we cannot make any firm conclusions about the benefit of these drugs for improving symptoms of primary RP. We cannot be confident because of the small numbers of participants involved in studies, issues with how studies were designed, and differences in how they measured whether or not treatments were effective. Therefore, the clinical importance of these results is difficult to assess, especially when placebo response is high. It is also pertinent that the results for each drug class and for individual drugs within each drug class must be interpreted in the context that they may have varying pharmacologic effects in addition to vasodilation. This must be taken into consideration when any conclusions are made about the overall effects of each drug class and/or individual drug."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3360 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDiarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of hand-washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nIndividually-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand-washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, we pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using the generic inverse variance method and a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 29 RCTs: 13 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,471 participants), 15 community-based trials in LMICs (29,347 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with AIDS in a high-income country (148 participants). All the trials and follow-up assessments were of short-term duration.\nHand-washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevent around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high-income countries (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 9 trials, 4664 participants, high-certainty evidence) and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs, but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; 2 trials, 45,380 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only four trials reported measures of behaviour change, and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand-washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; 3 trials, 1845 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nHand-washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; 9 trials, 15,950 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, six of these nine trials were from Asian settings, with only one trial from South America and two trials from sub-Saharan Africa. In seven trials, soap was provided free alongside hand-washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75; 7 trials, 12,646 participants; education only: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; 2 trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating or cooking, after visiting the toilet, or cleaning the baby's bottom) and increased compliance with hand-hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups compared with the control in community trials (data not pooled: 4 trials, 3591 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nHand-washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among a high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (mean difference −1.68, 95% CI −1.93 to −1.43; 1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hand-washing frequency increased to seven times a day in the intervention group versus three times a day in the control arm in this hospital trial (1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe found no trials evaluating the effects of hand-washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths or cost effectiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHand-washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. The included trials do not provide evidence about the long-term impact of the interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for studies that investigated the use of programmes to encourage hand washing in communities, day-care centres, schools, hospitals, and households. We were interested in whether taking part in the programmes affected the number of times people in the study reported having diarrhoea.\nWe looked for studies in which the treatments people received were decided at random. This type of study usually gives the most reliable evidence about the effects of a treatment."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3361 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFunctional dyspepsia (FD or non-ulcer dyspepsia) is defined as continuous or frequently recurring epigastric pain or discomfort for which no organic cause can be found. Acid suppressive therapy, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), has been proposed as a therapeutic option in FD, but its efficacy remains controversial. While PPIs are generally considered safe and well tolerated, they have been associated with adverse events, especially in the long term. For this reason, decisions on whether to initiate or continue PPI therapy should be made based on an appropriate clinical indication. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether PPI therapy provides symptomatic relief in FD.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life compared to placebo, H2 receptor antagonists or prokinetics, in people with functional dyspepsia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched in the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library (to May 2017), MEDLINE (OvidSP; to May 2017), Embase (OvidSP; to May 2017), and SIGLE grey literature (up to May 2017) and clinical trial registries; we handsearched abstracts from conferences up to May 2017. We screened non-systematic reviews, systematic reviews and guidelines to identify any additional trials. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any PPI with placebo, H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or prokinetics for the treatment of FD of at least two weeks' duration. Participants were adults (aged 16 years or greater) with an adequate diagnosis of FD (any validated criteria such as Rome I, II, III or Lancet Working Group).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data. We collected data on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and number of overall adverse events. Specific adverse events were beyond the scope of this review.\nMain results\nWe identified 25 RCTs from 27 papers (with 8453 participants) studying the effect of PPIs versus placebo, H2RAs or prokinetics for improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life in people with FD. Low-dose PPIs had similar efficacy as standard-dose PPIs, therefore we combined these subgroups for the analysis. PPI was more effective than placebo at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; participants = 6172; studies = 18; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11; moderate quality evidence). PPIs may have little or no effect compared with H2RAs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; participants = 740; studies = 2; low quality evidence), and may be slightly more effective than prokinetics (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; participants = 1033; studies = 5; NNTB 16; low quality evidence) at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD. PPIs plus prokinetics have probably little or no effect compared with PPIs alone at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).\nThere was no difference when subgrouped by Helicobacter pylori status, country of origin, or presence of reflux or Rome III subtypes. There were no differences in the number of adverse events observed between PPIs and any of the other treatments. There were fewer adverse events in the combination of PPI plus prokinetics compared to prokinetics alone (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence that PPIs are effective for the treatment of FD, independent of the dose and duration of treatment compared with placebo. PPIs may be slightly more effective than prokinetics for the treatment of FD; however, the evidence is scarce. The trials evaluating PPIs versus prokinetics are difficult to interpret as they are at risk of bias. Although the effect of these drugs seems to be small, the drugs are well tolerated.\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 25 studies (with 8453 participants). There were six studies (2304 participants) comparing low-dose PPIs versus standard-dose PPIs (the dose used in clinical practice); 18 studies (6172 participants) comparing PPIs with placebo (pretend treatment); two studies (740 participants) comparing PPIs with H2RAs; five studies (1033 participants) comparing PPIs with prokinetics and two studies (407 participants) comparing PPIs plus prokinetics versus prokinetics alone.\nThe duration of the treatment lasted at least two weeks. Seven studies reported treatment for two weeks, 12 studies reported treatment for four weeks and five studies reported more than six weeks of treatment. The treatment period was unclear in one study."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3362 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles with embryos derived from donated oocytes. In both situations, the endometrium is primed with oestrogen and progestogen in different doses and routes of administration.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the most effective endometrial preparation for women undergoing transfer with frozen embryos or embryos from donor oocytes with regard to the subsequent live birth rate (LBR).\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trials registers and abstracts of reproductive societies' meetings were searched in June 2020 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analysed all available interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or between each other. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical and multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, cycle cancellation, endometrial thickness and adverse effects.\nMain results\nThirty-one RCTs (5426 women) were included. Evidence was moderate to very low-quality: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, and serious imprecision.\nStimulated versus programmed cycle\nWe are uncertain whether a letrozole-stimulated cycle compared to a programmed cycle, for endometrial preparation, improves LBR (odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 3.26; 100 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence).\nStimulating with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), letrozole or clomiphene citrate may improve clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.38; 656 participants; five studies; I2 = 11%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if they reduce miscarriage rate (MR) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.71; 355 participants; three studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Endometrial thickness (ET) may be reduced with clomiphene citrate (mean difference(MD) -1.04, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.49; 92 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.\nNatural versus programmed cycle\nWe are uncertain of the effect from a natural versus programmed cycle for LBR (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; 1285 participants; four studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and CPR (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; 1249 participants; five studies; I2 = 60%; very low-quality evidence), while a natural cycle probably reduces the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 734 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and ET. No study reported other outcomes.\nTransdermal versus oral oestrogens\nFrom low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect transdermal compared to oral oestrogens has on CPR (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; 504 participants; three studies; I2 = 58%) or MR (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.09; 414 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%). Other outcomes were not reported.\nDay of starting administration of progestogen\nWhen doing a fresh ET using donated oocytes in a synchronised cycle starting progestogen on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) or the day after OPU, in comparison with recipients that start progestogen the day prior to OPU, probably increases the CPR (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.08; 282 participants; one study, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or MR. It probably reduces the CCR (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.74; 282 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). No study reported other outcomes.\nGonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus control\nA cycle with GnRH agonist compared to without may improve LBR (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.78; 234 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect on CPR (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1289 participants; eight studies; I2 = 20%), MR (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.00; 828 participants; four studies; I2 = 0%), CCR (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 530 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%) and ET (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.16; 697 participants; four studies; I2 = 4%). No study reported other outcomes.\nAmong different GnRH agonists\nFrom very low-quality evidence we are uncertain if cycles among different GnRH agonists improves CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes.\nGnRH agonists versus GnRH antagonists\nGnRH antagonists compared to agonists probably improves CPR (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; 473 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and MPR. No study reported other outcomes.\nAspirin versus control\nFrom very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with aspirin versus without improves LBR, CPR, or ET.\nSteroids versus control\nFrom very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with steroids compared to without improves LBR, CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence on the use of any particular intervention for endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. In frozen embryo transfers, low-quality evidence showed that clinical pregnancy rates may be improved in a stimulated cycle compared to a programmed one, and we are uncertain of the effect when comparing a programmed cycle to a natural cycle. Cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced in a natural cycle. Although administering a GnRH agonist, compared to without, may improve live birth rates, clinical pregnancy rates will probably be improved in a GnRH antagonist cycle over an agonist cycle.\nIn fresh synchronised oocyte donor cycles, the clinical pregnancy rate is probably improved and cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced when starting progestogen the day of or day after donor oocyte retrieval.\nAdequately powered studies are needed to evaluate each treatment more accurately.\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 are uncertain whether a stimulated cycle (with letrozole) compared to a programmed cycle, for endometrial preparation, improves live birth. The evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth following a programmed cycle is assumed to be 24%, the chance following a stimulated cycle would be between 13% and 51%. We are also uncertain of the impact on miscarriage rate and endometrial thickness. A stimulated cycle may improve clinical pregnancy rate. Data were lacking on multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation and other adverse effects.\nWe are uncertain whether a natural cycle improves the live birth rate, pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and endometrial thickness in comparison with a programmed cycle. Data were lacking for all other outcomes.\nWe are uncertain if transdermal (delivered via the skin) oestrogens compared with oral (by mouth) oestrogens improve clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate. Data were lacking for all other outcomes in this comparison.\nStarting progestogen on the day of the donor oocyte retrieval or the day after probably increases the clinical pregnancy rate and probably reduces the cycle cancellation rate. We are uncertain if it reduces the miscarriage rate. Data were lacking for all other outcomes.\nA cycle with GnRH agonist compared to without may improve live birth rate. We are uncertain of the effect of a GnRH cycle compared to no GnRH for the outcomes of clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and endometrial thickness. No study reported on the other outcomes for this comparison.\nWe are uncertain if any GnRH agonist is better than other: a cycle with daily leuprolide or with deposit tryptorelin improves clinical pregnancy rate, or if daily acetate leuprolide or daily nafarelin reduces the miscarriage rate. Other outcomes were not reported.\nGnRH antagonists compared to agonists probably improve clinical pregnancy rate. We are uncertain of the effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate. No study reported the other outcomes.\nWe are uncertain whether a cycle with aspirin compared to a cycle without improves live birth, clinical pregnancy rate or endometrial thickness. Data were lacking for all other outcomes.\nWe are also uncertain whether a cycle with steroids compared to a cycle without steroids improves live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate or miscarriage rate. No study reported on the other outcomes."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3363 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people, and its impact on society is substantial. After surgery, people require rehabilitation to help them recover. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is where rehabilitation is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, supervised by a geriatrician, rehabilitation physician or other appropriate physician. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in either inpatient or ambulatory care settings, for older people with hip fracture.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (October 2020), and two trials registers (November 2019).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of post-surgical care using multidisciplinary rehabilitation of older people (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture. The primary outcome – 'poor outcome' – was a composite of mortality and decline in residential status at long-term (generally one year) follow-up. The other 'critical' outcomes were health-related quality of life, mortality, dependency in activities of daily living, mobility, and related pain.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently performed study selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nThe 28 included trials involved 5351 older (mean ages ranged from 76.5 to 87 years), usually female, participants who had undergone hip fracture surgery. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity in the trial interventions and populations. Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items, such as blinding-related performance and detection biases. We summarise the findings for three comparisons below.\nInpatient rehabilitation: multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus 'usual care'\nMultidisciplinary rehabilitation was provided primarily in an inpatient setting in 20 trials.\nMultidisciplinary rehabilitation probably results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status, generally requiring institutional care) at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.98; 13 studies, 3036 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 347 people with hip fracture with poor outcome in 1000 people followed up between 6 and 12 months, this equates to 41 (95% CI 7 to 69) fewer people with poor outcome after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Expressed in terms of numbers needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), 25 patients (95% CI 15 to 100) would need to be treated to avoid one 'poor outcome'. Subgroup analysis by type of multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention showed no evidence of subgroup differences.\nMultidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital but the confidence interval does not exclude a small increase in the number of deaths (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.04; 11 studies, 2455 participants; low-certainty evidence). A similar finding applies at 4 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 18 studies, 3973 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer people with poorer mobility at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 5 studies, 1085 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nDue to very low-certainty evidence, we have little confidence in the findings for marginally better quality of life after multidisciplinary rehabilitation (1 study). The same applies to the mixed findings of some or no difference from multidisciplinary rehabilitation on dependence in activities of daily living at 1 to 4 months' follow-up (measured in various ways by 11 studies), or at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (13 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported.\nAmbulatory setting: supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation versus 'usual care'\nThree trials tested this comparison in 377 people mainly living at home. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of little to no between-group difference in poor outcome (death or move to a higher level of care or inability to walk) at one year (3 studies); quality of life at one year (1 study); in mortality at 4 or 12 months (2 studies); in independence in personal activities of daily living (1 study); in moving permanently to a higher level of care (2 studies) or being unable to walk (2 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported.\nOne trial tested this comparison in 240 nursing home residents. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no or minimal between-group differences at 12 months in 'poor outcome' defined as dead or unable to walk; or in mortality at 4 months or 12 months. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of no between-group differences in dependency at 4 weeks or at 12 months, or in quality of life, inability to walk or pain at 12 months.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn a hospital inpatient setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that rehabilitation after hip fracture surgery, when delivered by a multidisciplinary team and supervised by an appropriate medical specialist, results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status). There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital and at 4 to 12 months; however, it may also result in slightly more. There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may reduce the numbers of people with poorer mobility at 12 months. No conclusions can be drawn on other outcomes, for which the evidence is of very low certainty.\nThe generally very low-certainty evidence available for supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation means that we are very uncertain whether the findings of little or no difference for all outcomes between the intervention and usual care is true.\nGiven the prevalent clinical emphasis on early discharge, we suggest that research is best orientated towards early supported discharge and identifying the components of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation to optimise patient recovery within hospital and the components of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, including social care, subsequent to hospital discharge.\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 October 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3364 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInhaled antibiotics are commonly used to treat persistent airway infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa that contributes to lung damage in people with cystic fibrosis. Current guidelines recommend inhaled tobramycin for individuals with cystic fibrosis and persistent Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection who are aged six years or older. The aim is to reduce bacterial load in the lungs so as to reduce inflammation and deterioration of lung function. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of long-term inhaled antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis on clinical outcomes (lung function, frequency of exacerbations and nutrition), quality of life and adverse events (including drug-sensitivity reactions and survival).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched ongoing trials registries.\nDate of last search: 28 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected trials where people with cystic fibrosis received inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotic treatment for at least three months, treatment allocation was randomised or quasi-randomised, and there was a control group (either placebo, no placebo or another inhaled antibiotic).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected trials, judged the risk of bias, extracted data from these trials and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE system.\nMain results\nThe searches identified 410 citations to 125 trials; 18 trials (3042 participants aged between five and 45 years) met the inclusion criteria. Limited data were available for meta-analyses due to the variability of trial design and reporting of results. A total of 11 trials (1130 participants) compared an inhaled antibiotic to placebo or usual treatment for a duration between three and 33 months. Five trials (1255 participants) compared different antibiotics, two trials (585 participants) compared different regimens of tobramycin and one trial (90 participants) compared intermittent tobramycin with continuous tobramycin alternating with aztreonam. One trial (18 participants) compared an antibiotic to placebo and also to a different antibiotic and so fell into both groups. The most commonly studied antibiotic was tobramycin which was studied in 12 trials.\nInhaled antibiotics compared to placebo\nWe found that inhaled antibiotics may improve lung function measured in a variety of ways (4 trials, 814 participants). Compared to placebo, inhaled antibiotics may also reduce the frequency of exacerbations (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.93; 3 trials, 946 participants; low-certainty evidence). Inhaled antibiotics may lead to fewer days off school or work (quality of life measure) (mean difference (MD) -5.30 days, 95% CI -8.59 to -2.01; 1 trial, 245 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for us to be able to report an effect on nutritional outcomes and there was no effect on survival. There was no effect on antibiotic resistance seen in the two trials that were included in meta-analyses. We are uncertain of the effect of the intervention on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), but tinnitus and voice alteration were the only events occurring more often in the inhaled antibiotics group. The overall certainty of evidence was deemed to be low for most outcomes due to risk of bias within the trials and imprecision due to low event rates.\nDifferent antibiotics or regimens compared\nOf the eight trials comparing different inhaled antibiotics or different antibiotic regimens, there was only one trial for each unique comparison. We found no differences between groups for any outcomes except for the following. Aztreonam lysine for inhalation probably improved forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) % predicted compared to tobramycin (MD -3.40%, 95% CI -6.63 to -0.17; 1 trial, 273 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the method of defining the endpoint was different to the remaining trials and the participants were exposed to tobramycin for a long period making interpretation of the results problematic. We found no differences in any measure of lung function in the remaining comparisons. Trials measured pulmonary exacerbations in different ways and showed no differences between groups except for aztreonam lysine probably leading to fewer people needing treatment with additional antibiotics than with tobramycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86; 1 trial, 273 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and there were fewer hospitalisations due to respiratory exacerbations with levofloxacin compared to tobramycin (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; 1 trial, 282 participants; high-certainty evidence). Important treatment-related adverse events were not very common across comparisons, but were reported less often in the tobramycin group compared to both aztreonam lysine and colistimethate. We found the certainty of evidence for these comparisons to be directly related to the risk of bias within the individual trials and varied from low to high.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLong-term treatment with inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics probably improves lung function and reduces exacerbation rates, but pooled estimates of the level of benefit were very limited. The best evidence available is for inhaled tobramycin. More evidence from trials measuring similar outcomes in the same way is needed to determine a better measure of benefit. Longer-term trials are needed to look at the effect of inhaled antibiotics on quality of life, survival and nutritional outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Results from four trials showed that when compared to placebo, inhaled antibiotics may improve lung function and reduce the number of times the people with CF had a worsening of symptoms (exacerbation). Inhaled antibiotics may also mean fewer days off school or work (a measure of quality of life). They did not seem to have an effect on survival. We are not sure of the side effects of inhaled antibiotics, but tinnitus and changes in voice were reported more often in people inhaling antibiotics rather than the placebo. We did not find enough evidence to be able to comment on how inhaled antibiotics affect height and weight.\nWhere the trials compared different inhaled antibiotics or schedules, there was only one trial in each of the eight different comparisons. The only differences we found in all these comparisons were for two outcomes. In one trial we found that aztreonam lysine probably improved lung function more than tobramycin, but no important differences were found in the other trials with regard to lung function. Aztreonam lysine also probably led to fewer people needing additional courses of antibiotics than tobramycin and there were fewer hospitalisations after levofloxacin compared to placebo. We noted that important side effects that were related to the treatment were not very common in the trials, but they were less common with tobramycin than with other antibiotics."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3365 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLow vision rehabilitation aims to optimise the use of residual vision after severe vision loss, but also aims to teach skills in order to improve visual functioning in daily life. Other aims include helping people to adapt to permanent vision loss and improving psychosocial functioning. These skills promote independence and active participation in society. Low vision rehabilitation should ultimately improve quality of life (QOL) for people who have visual impairment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation interventions on health-related QOL (HRQOL), vision-related QOL (VRQOL) or visual functioning and other closely related patient-reported outcomes in visually impaired adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers up to 18 September 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating HRQOL, VRQOL and related outcomes of adults, with an irreversible visual impairment (World Health Organization criteria). We included studies that compared rehabilitation interventions with active or inactive control.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 44 studies (73 reports) conducted in North America, Australia, Europe and Asia. Considering the clinical diversity of low vision rehabilitation interventions, the studies were categorised into four groups of related intervention types (and by comparator): (1) psychological therapies and/or group programmes, (2) methods of enhancing vision, (3) multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes, (4) other programmes. Comparators were no care or waiting list as an inactive control group, usual care or other active control group. Participants included in the reported studies were mainly older adults with visual impairment or blindness, often as a result of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Study settings were often hospitals or low vision rehabilitation services. Effects were measured at the short-term (six months or less) in most studies. Not all studies reported on funding, but those who did were supported by public or non-profit funders (N = 31), except for two studies.\nCompared to inactive comparators, we found very low-certainty evidence of no beneficial effects on HRQOL that was imprecisely estimated for psychological therapies and/or group programmes (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.80; participants = 183; studies = 1) and an imprecise estimate suggesting little or no effect of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21; participants = 183; studies = 2; I2 = 0%); no data were available for methods of enhancing vision or other programmes. Regarding VRQOL, we found low- or very low-certainty evidence of imprecisely estimated benefit with psychological therapies and/or group programmes (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.08; studies = 2; I2 = 24%) and methods of enhancing vision (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.15; participants = 262; studies = 5; I2 = 34%). Two studies using multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes showed beneficial but inconsistent results, of which one study, which was at low risk of bias and used intensive rehabilitation, recorded a very large and significant effect (SMD: -1.64, 95% CI -2.05 to -1.24), and the other a small and uncertain effect (SMD -0.42, 95%: -0.90 to 0.07).\nCompared to active comparators, we found very low-certainty evidence of small or no beneficial effects on HRQOL that were imprecisely estimated with psychological therapies and/or group programmes including no difference (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.20; participants = 600; studies = 4; I2 = 67%). We also found very low-certainty evidence of small or no beneficial effects with methods of enhancing vision, that were imprecisely estimated (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09; participants = 443; studies = 2; I2 = 0%) and multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.12; participants = 375; studies = 2; I2 = 0%). Concerning VRQOL, low-certainty evidence of small or no beneficial effects that were imprecisely estimated, was found with psychological therapies and/or group programmes (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.01; participants = 1245; studies = 7; I2 = 19%) and moderate-certainty evidence of small effects with methods of enhancing vision (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.08; participants = 660; studies = 7; I2 = 16%). No additional benefit was found with multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.20; participants = 464; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence).\nAmong secondary outcomes, very low-certainty evidence of a significant and large, but imprecisely estimated benefit on self-efficacy or self-esteem was found for psychological therapies and/or group programmes versus waiting list or no care (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.22; participants = 456; studies = 5; I2 = 91%). In addition, very low-certainty evidence of a significant and large estimated benefit on depression was found for psychological therapies and/or group programmes versus waiting list or no care (SMD -1.23, 95% CI -2.18 to -0.28; participants = 456; studies = 5; I2 = 94%), and moderate-certainty evidence of a small benefit versus usual care (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; participants = 1334; studies = 9; I2 = 0%). ln the few studies in which (serious) adverse events were reported, these seemed unrelated to low vision rehabilitation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this Cochrane Review, no evidence of benefit was found of diverse types of low vision rehabilitation interventions on HRQOL. We found low- and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively, of a small benefit on VRQOL in studies comparing psychological therapies or methods for enhancing vision with active comparators.\nThe type of rehabilitation varied among studies, even within intervention groups, but benefits were detected even if compared to active control groups. Studies were conducted on adults with visual impairment mainly of older age, living in high-income countries and often having AMD. Most of the included studies on low vision rehabilitation had a short follow-up,\nDespite these limitations, the consistent direction of the effects in this review towards benefit justifies further research activities of better methodological quality including longer maintenance effects and costs of several types of low vision rehabilitation. Research on the working mechanisms of components of rehabilitation interventions in different settings, including low-income countries, is also needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cochrane Review authors searched for studies published up to 18 September 2019."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3366 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGraves' disease is an autoimmune disease caused by the production of auto-antibodies against the thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor, which stimulates follicular cell production of thyroid hormone. It is the commonest cause of hyperthyroidism and may cause considerable morbidity with increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events. Five per cent of people with Graves' disease develop moderate to severe Graves' ophthalmopathy. Thyroid surgery for Graves' disease commonly falls into one of three categories: 1) total thyroidectomy, which aims to achieve complete macroscopic removal of thyroid tissue; 2) bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy, in which bilateral thyroid remnants are left; and 3) unilateral total and contralateral subtotal thyroidectomy, or the Dunhill procedure. Recent American Thyroid Association guidelines on treatment of Graves' hyperthyroidism emphasised the role of surgery as one of the first-line treatments. Total thyroidectomy removes target tissue for the thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor antibody. It controls hyperthyroidism at the cost of lifelong thyroxine replacement. Subtotal thyroidectomy leaves a thyroid remnant and may be less likely to lead to complications, however a higher rate of recurrent hyperthyroidism is expected and revision surgery would be challenging. The choice of the thyroidectomy technique is currently largely a matter of surgeon preference, and a systematic review of the evidence base is required to determine which option offers the best outcomes for patients.\nObjectives\nTo assess the optimal surgical technique for Graves' disease and Graves' ophthalmopathy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the last search was June 2015 for all databases. We did not apply any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nOnly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving participants with a diagnosis of Graves' disease based on clinical features and biochemical findings of hyperthyroidism were eligible for inclusion. Trials had to directly compare at least two surgical techniques of thyroidectomy. There was no age limit to study inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted and cross-checked the data for analysis, evaluation of risk of bias and establishment of 'Summary of findings' tables using the GRADE instrument. The senior review authors reviewed the data and reconciled disagreements.\nMain results\nWe included five RCTs with a total of 886 participants; 172 were randomised to total thyroidectomy, 383 were randomised to bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy, 309 were randomised to the Dunhill procedure and 22 were randomised to either bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy or the Dunhill procedure. Follow-up ranged between six months and six years. One trial had three comparison arms. All five trials were conducted in university hospitals or tertiary referral centres for thyroid disease. All thyroidectomies were performed by experienced surgeons. The overall quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. In all trials, blinding procedures were insufficiently described. Outcome assessment for objective outcomes was blinded in one trial. Surgeons were not blinded in any of the trials. One trial blinded participants. Attrition bias was a substantial problem in one trial, with 35% losses to follow-up. In one trial the analysis was not carried out on an intention-to-treat basis.\nTotal thyroidectomy was more effective than subtotal thyroidectomy techniques (both bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy and the Dunhill procedure) at preventing recurrent hyperthyroidism in 0/150 versus 11/200 participants (OR 0.14 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.46); P = 0.001; 2 trials; moderate quality evidence). Total thyroidectomy was also more effective than bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy at preventing recurrent hyperthyroidism in 0/150 versus 10/150 participants (odds ratio (OR) 0.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.44); P = 0.001; 2 trials; moderate quality evidence). Compared to bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy, the Dunhill procedure was more likely to prevent recurrent hyperthyroidism in 20/283 versus 8/309 participants (OR 2.73 (95% CI 1.28 to 5.85); P = 0.01; 3 trials; low quality evidence). Total thyroidectomy compared with subtotal thyroidectomy conferred a greater risk of permanent hypocalcaemia/hypoparathyroidism in 8/172 versus 3/221 participants (OR 4.79 (95% CI 1.36 to 16.83); P = 0.01; 3 trials; low quality evidence). Effects of the various surgical techniques on permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy and regression of Graves' ophthalmopathy were neutral. One death was reported in one study in year three of follow-up. No study investigated health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTotal thyroidectomy is more effective than subtotal thyroidectomy (both bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy and the Dunhill procedure) at preventing recurrent hyperthyroidism in Graves' disease. The type of surgery performed does not affect regression of Graves’ ophthalmopathy. There was some evidence that total thyroidectomy compared with subtotal thyroidectomy conferred a greater risk of permanent hypocalcaemia/hypoparathyroidism, which however, was not seen in comparison with bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy. Permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy did not seem to be affected by type of thyroidectomy. Health-related quality of life as a patient-important outcome measure should form a core determinant of any future trial on the effects of thyroid surgery for Graves' disease.\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": "This plain language summary is current as of 22 June 2015."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3367 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is characterised by pulmonary vascular changes, leads to elevated pulmonary artery pressures, dyspnoea, a reduction in exercise tolerance, right heart failure, and ultimately death.\nProstacyclin analogue drugs mimic endogenous prostacyclin which leads to vasodilation, inhibition of platelet aggregation, and reversal of vascular remodelling. Prostacyclin's short half-life theoretically enhances selectivity for the pulmonary vascular bed by direct (via central venous catheter) administration. Initial continuous infusion prostacyclins were efficacious, but use of intravenous access increases the risk of adverse events. Newer and safer subcutaneous, oral and inhaled preparations are now available, though possibly less potent.\nSelexipag is an oral selective prostacyclin receptor (IP receptor) agonist that works similarly to prostacyclin, potentially more stable, with less complex administration and titration.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of prostacyclin, prostacyclin analogues or prostacyclin receptor agonists for PAH in adults and children.\nSearch methods\nWe performed searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase up to 16 September 2018. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared prostacyclin, prostacyclin analogues or prostacyclin receptor agonists to control (placebo, any other treatment or usual care) for at least six weeks.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods specified by Cochrane. Primary outcomes included change in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class, six-minute walk distance (6MWD), and mortality.\nMain results\nSeventeen trials with 3765 mostly adult participants were included; median trial duration was 12 weeks. Fifteen trials used prostacyclin analogues: intravenous (N = 4); subcutaneous (N = 1); oral (N = 5); inhaled (N = 5); two used oral prostacyclin receptor agonists. Three intravenous and two inhaled trials were open-label.\nParticipants using prostacyclin had 2.39 times greater odds of improving by at least one WHO functional class (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 3.32; 24 per 100 (95% CI 18.5 to 30.4) with prostacyclin compared to 12 per 100 with control; 8 trials, 1066 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement occurred with intravenous (odds ratio (OR) 14.96, 95% CI 4.76 to 47.04), and inhaled (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.66), but not with oral preparations. Participants using prostacyclin increased their 6MWD by 19.50 metres (95% CI 14.82 to 24.19; 13 trials, 2283 participants; low-certainty evidence), which was clinically significant with intravenous (mean difference (MD) 91.76 metres; 95% CI 58.97 to 124.55), but not with non-intravenous preparations (subcutaneous: MD 16.00 metres, 95% CI 7.38 to 24.62; oral: MD 14.76 metres, 95% CI 7.81 to 21.70; inhaled: MD 26.97 metres, 95% CI 17.21 to 36.73). Mortality was reduced in the intravenous (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69; risk of death 6 per 100 (95% CI 2.38 to 12.31) with prostacyclin compared to 17 per 100 with control; 4 trials, 255 participants), but not in the non-intravenous studies (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.40; risk of death 21 per 1000 (95% CI 12.00 to 34.20) with prostacyclin compared to 25 per 1000 with control; moderate-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 2299 participants). We reduced the certainty of evidence due to few studies per subgroup and use of open-label trials.\nProstacyclins improved cardiopulmonary haemodynamics (reduction in mean pulmonary artery pressure by 3.60 mmHg (95% CI -4.73 to -2.48); pulmonary vascular resistance by 2.81 WU (95% CI -3.80 to -1.82); right atrial pressure by 1.90 mmHg (95% CI -2.58 to -1.22), and increase in cardiac index by 0.31 L/min/m2 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.38); low-certainty evidence), improved dyspnoea (low-certainty evidence, and improved quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), when compared to control. When only subcutaneous/inhaled trials were included the effect was still significant, but the magnitude was smaller. There was no difference across oral trials.\nAdverse events were increased in all prostacyclin preparations, including vasodilation (OR 5.03, 95% CI 3.84 to 6.58), headache (OR 3.16, 95% CI 2.62 to 3.80), jaw pain (OR 5.25, 95% CI 3.96 to 6.98), diarrhoea (OR 2.81, 95% CI 2.29 to 3.46), nausea/vomiting (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.88), myalgias (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.58), upper respiratory tract events (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.13), extremity pain (OR 3.36, 95% CI 2.32 to 4.85), and infusion site reactions (OR 14.41, 95% CI 9.16 to 22.66). In the intravenous trials, there was a 12%-25% risk of serious non-fatal events including sepsis, haemorrhage, pneumothorax and pulmonary embolism.\nTwo trials (1199 participants) compared oral selexipag to placebo; no trials compared selexipag with prostacyclin. There was a small 12.62 metre improvement in 6MWD (95% CI 1.90 to 23.34; high-certainty evidence), and weak evidence for haemodynamics. The effect was uncertain for WHO functional class. The risk of death with selexipag was five per 100 compared to three per 100 with placebo, though the CI crossed zero so the true effect is uncertain (risk difference (RD) 0.02 (95% CI -0.00 to 0.04). There was less clinical worsening with selexipag (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.60), though more side effects, including vasodilation (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.72 to 4.17), headache (OR 3.91, 95% CI 3.07 to 4.98), jaw pain (OR 5.33, 95% CI 3.64 to 7.81), diarrhoea (OR 3.11, 95% CI 2.39 to 4.05), nausea/vomiting (OR 2.92, 95% CI 2.29 to 3.73), pain in the extremities (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.52), and myalgias (OR 3.05, 95% CI 2.02 to 4.58).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review demonstrates clinical and statistical benefit for intravenous prostacyclin (compared to control) with improved functional class, 6MWD, mortality, symptoms scores, and cardiopulmonary haemodynamics, but at a cost of adverse events. This may be due to a true effect, or may be overestimated due to the inclusion of small, short or open-label studies. There was a statistical and small clinical benefit in function and haemodynamics for inhaled prostacyclin, but the effect is uncertain for mortality. The effect of oral prostacyclins are less certain. Selexipag demonstrated less clinical worsening without discernable impact on survival, increased adverse events; and the effect on other outcomes is less certain. Real-world registry data may provide further information about clinical effect.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why this review is important\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Pulmonary hypertension can cause breathlessness, reduced exercise tolerance, reduced quality of life, hospitalisations, and early death. Prostacyclin analogues may improve blood circulation in the right heart and lungs. We wanted to make sure if these drugs are being used, there is evidence of benefit and little or no harm."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3368 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeripheral arterial disease (PAD), caused by narrowing of the arteries in the limbs, is increasing in incidence and prevalence as our population is ageing and as diabetes is becoming more prevalent. PAD can cause pain in the limbs while walking, known as intermittent claudication, or can be more severe and cause pain while at rest, ulceration, and ultimately gangrene and limb loss. This more severe stage of PAD is known as 'critical limb ischaemia'. Treatments for PAD include medications that help to reduce the increased risk of cardiovascular events and help improve blood flow, as well as endovascular or surgical repair or bypass of the blocked arteries. However, many people are unresponsive to medications and are not suited to surgical or endovascular treatment, leaving amputation as the last option. Gene therapy is a novel approach in which genetic material encoding for proteins that may help increase revascularisation is injected into the affected limbs of patients. This type of treatment has been shown to be safe, but its efficacy, especially regarding ulcer healing, effects on quality of life, and other symptomatic outcomes remain unknown.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of gene therapy for symptomatic peripheral arterial disease.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched Cochrane CENTRAL, the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED, along with trials registries (all searched 27 November 2017). We also checked reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews for further studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised studies that evaluated gene therapy versus no gene therapy in people with PAD. We excluded studies that evaluated direct growth hormone treatment or cell-based treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, performed quality assessment, and extracted data from the included studies. We collected pertinent information on each study, as well as data for the outcomes of amputation-free survival, ulcer healing, quality of life, amputation, all-cause mortality, ankle brachial index, symptom scores, and claudication distance.\nMain results\nWe included in this review a total of 17 studies with 1988 participants (evidence current until November 2017). Three studies limited their inclusion to people with intermittent claudication, 12 limited inclusion to people with varying levels of critical limb ischaemia, and two included people with either condition. Study investigators evaluated many different types of gene therapies, using different protocols. Most studies evaluated growth factor-encoding gene therapy, with six studies using vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-encoding genes, four using hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)-encoding genes, and three using fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-encoded genes. Two studies evaluated hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF-1α) gene therapy, one study used a developmental endothelial locus-1 gene therapy, and the final study evaluated a stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1) gene therapy. Most studies reported outcomes after 12 months of follow-up, but follow-up ranged from three months to two years.\nOverall risk of bias varied between studies, with many studies not providing sufficient detail for adequate determination of low risk of bias for many domains. Two studies did not utilise a placebo control, leading to risk of performance bias. Several studies reported in previous protocols or in their Methods sections that they would report on certain outcomes for which no data were then reported, increasing risk of reporting bias. All included studies reported sponsorships from corporate entities that led to unclear risk of other bias. The overall quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, generally as the result of heterogeneity and imprecision, with few or no studies reporting on outcomes.\nEvidence suggests no clear differences for the outcomes of amputation-free survival, major amputation, and all-cause mortality between those treated with gene therapy and those not receiving this treatment (all moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence suggests improvement in complete ulcer healing with gene therapy (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 4.59; P = 0.04). We could not combine data on quality of life and can draw no conclusions at this time regarding this outcome (very low-quality evidence). We included one study in the meta-analysis for ankle brachial index, which showed no clear differences between treatments, but we can draw no overall association (low-quality evidence). We combined in a meta-analysis pain symptom scores as assessed by visual analogue scales from two studies and found no clear differences between treatment groups (very low-quality evidence). We carried out extensive subgroup analyses by PAD classification, dosage schedule, vector type, and gene used but identified no substantial differences.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-quality evidence shows no clear differences in amputation-free survival, major amputation, and all-cause mortality between those treated with gene therapy and those not receiving gene therapy. Some evidence suggests that gene therapy may lead to improved complete ulcer healing, but this outcome needs to be explored with improved reporting of the measure, such as decreased ulcer area in cm², and better description of ulcer types and healing. Further standardised data that are amenable to meta-analysis are needed to evaluate other outcomes such as quality of life, ankle brachial index, symptom scores, and claudication distance.\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": "Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) occurs when the blood flow to the limbs is restricted because of narrowed arteries. This circulatory problem is increasing in the population because of increased levels of diabetes and because the population is ageing. Due to restricted blood flow, PAD can cause pain in the legs while walking, usually after some distance (known as 'intermittent claudication'). As the disease becomes more severe, a person can experience serious pain while at rest, as well as ulcers in the feet and legs (known as 'critical limb ischaemia'). PAD can be treated with medication or through interventions such as surgical or endovascular procedures (less invasive than surgery, endovascular intervention is carried out through a small incision to access the vessels). However, many people will not respond to medication, and surgical or endovascular procedures may not be appropriate because of medical risks. In these cases, for extreme PAD, the only option for treating the condition is amputation. Therapies are needed that can help repair the vessels in the limbs of people with PAD to restore adequate blood flow.\nGene therapy is a novel approach whereby genetic material, encoded for proteins that may help to improve blood flow by restoring blood vessels, is injected into a person's legs. Trials have shown that this treatment is safe, but whether it is effective in reducing the risk of amputation or improving quality of life remains unknown."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3369 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn patients of various ages undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV), it has been observed that positions other than the standard supine position, such as the prone position, may improve respiratory parameters. The benefits of these positions have not been clearly defined for critically ill newborns receiving MV.\nThis is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2013.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nTo assess the effects of different positioning of newborn infants receiving MV (supine vs prone, lateral decubitus or quarter turn from prone) in improving short-term respiratory outcomes.\nSecondary objective\nTo assess the effects of different positioning of newborn infants receiving MV on mortality and neuromotor and developmental outcomes over the long term, and on other complications of prematurity.\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 8), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 22 August 2016), Embase (1980 to 22 August 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 22 August 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing different positions in newborns receiving mechanical ventilation.\nData collection and analysis\nThree unblinded review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion in the review and extracted study data. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. If the meta-analysis was not appropriate owing to substantial clinical heterogeneity between trials, we presented review findings in narrative format.\nMain results\nWe included in this review 19 trials involving 516 participants. Seven of the included studies (N = 222) had not been evaluated in the previous review. Investigators compared several positions: prone versus supine, prone alternant versus supine, prone versus lateral right, lateral right versus supine, lateral left versus supine, lateral alternant versus supine, lateral right versus lateral left, quarter turn from prone versus supine, quarter turn from prone versus prone and good lung dependent versus good lung uppermost.\nApart from two studies that compared lateral alternant versus supine, one comparing lateral right versus supine and two comparing prone or prone alternant versus the supine position, all included studies had a cross-over design. In five studies, infants were ventilated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); in the other studies, infants were treated with conventional ventilation (CV).\nRisks of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes. This update detects a moderate to high grade of inconsistency, similar to previous versions. However, for the analysed outcomes, the direction of effect was the same in all studies. Therefore, we consider that this inconsistency had little effect on the conclusions of the meta-analysis. When comparing prone versus supine position, we observed an increase in arterial oxygen tension (PO2) in the prone position (mean difference (MD) 5.49 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.92 to 8.05 mmHg; three trials; 116 participants; I2= 0). When percent haemoglobin oxygen saturation was measured with pulse oximetry (SpO2), improvement in the prone position was between 1.13% and 3.24% (typical effect based on nine trials with 154 participants; I2= 89%). The subgroup ventilated with CPAP (three trials; 59 participants) showed a trend towards improving SpO2 in the prone position compared with the supine position, although the mean difference (1.91%) was not significant (95% CI -1.14 to 4.97) and heterogeneity was extreme (I2= 95%).\nSensitivity analyses restricted to studies with low risk of selection bias showed homogeneous results and verified a small but significant effect (MD 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.02; four trials; 92 participants; I2= 0).\nWe also noted a slight improvement in the number of episodes of desaturation; it was not possible to establish whether this effect continued once the intervention was stopped. Investigators studied few adverse effects from the interventions in sufficient detail. Two studies analysed tracheal cultures of neonates after five days on MV, reporting lower bacterial colonisation in the alternating lateral position than in the supine posture. Other effects - positive or negative - cannot be excluded in light of the relatively small numbers of neonates studied.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis update of our last review in 2013 supports previous conclusions. Evidence of low to moderate quality favours the prone position for slightly improved oxygenation in neonates undergoing mechanical ventilation. However, we found no evidence to suggest that particular body positions during mechanical ventilation of the neonate are effective in producing sustained and clinically relevant improvement.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included in this review 19 trials involving 516 participants. Comparisons included supine position versus prone and different lateral positions (right, left, alternant or quarter for prone). The outcome most often reported in these studies was change in oxygenation."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3370 | [
{
"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: \"Why do we isolate teeth when they are being repaired?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "When dental practitioners need to repair a tooth, they often isolate it from the rest of the mouth to:\n- keep away saliva to prevent it from impairing the bonding of materials;\n- reduce aerosols produced during the dental procedure to a certain extent;\n- stop materials, liquids or instruments used for the repair from being swallowed or damaging the mouth."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3371 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.\nEpilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free, and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.\nThe correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments.\nCarbamazepine or lamotrigine are recommended as first-line treatments for new onset focal seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs.\nObjectives\nTo review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).\nSearch methods\nWe conducted the first searches for this review in 1997. For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Clinical Trials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 February 2018, without language restrictions\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures\nData collection and analysis\nThis was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3787 eligible individuals from nine out of 14 trials: 68% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for carbamazepine; and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.\nThe main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.82, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.55 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants: 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.41), moderate-quality evidence) showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine in terms of treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events, but no different between drugs for treatment failure due to lack of efficacy.\nTime to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41, high-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.97, high-quality evidence), showed a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (pooled HR for all participants 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07, high-quality evidence) or time to 24-month remission (HR for all participants 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25, high-quality evidence), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so evidence is limited.\nThe results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.\nThe most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.\nThe methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the treatment failure and withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate quality evidence indicates that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment or due to adverse events occurs significantly earlier on carbamazepine than lamotrigine, but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. The choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Methods\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The last search for trials was in February 2018. We assessed the evidence from 14 randomised controlled trials comparing lamotrigine with carbamazepine. We were able to combine information for 2572 people from nine of the 14 trials; for the remaining 1215 people from five trials, information was not available to use in this review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3372 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLow-back pain (LBP) is a common condition and imposes a substantial economic burden upon people living in industrialized societies. A large proportion of people with chronic LBP use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), visit CAM practitioners, or both. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in treating people with LBP. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine for non-specific LBP.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases up to September 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinical Trials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal and PubMed; checked reference lists in review articles, guidelines and retrieved trials; and personally contacted individuals with expertise in this area.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining adults (over 18 years of age) suffering from acute, sub-acute, or chronic non-specific LBP. The interventions were herbal medicines which we defined as plants used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function.\nData collection and analysis\nA library scientist with the Cochrane Back Review Group conducted the database searches. One review author contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. We downloaded full references and abstracts of the identified studies and retrieved a hard copy of each study for final inclusion decisions. Two review authors assessed risk of bias, GRADE criteria (GRADE 2004), and CONSORT compliance and a random subset were compared to assessments by a third individual. Two review authors assessed clinical relevance and resolved any disagreements by consensus.\nMain results\nWe included 14 RCTs (2050 participants) in this review. One trial on Solidago chilensis M. (Brazilian arnica) (20 participants) found very low quality evidence of reduction in perception of pain and improved flexibility with application of Brazilian arnica-containing gel twice daily as compared to placebo gel. Capsicum frutescens cream or plaster probably produces more favourable results than placebo in people with chronic LBP (three trials, 755 participants, moderate quality evidence). Based on current evidence, it is not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for treating people with acute LBP compared to placebo (one trial, 40 participants, low quality evidence). Another trial found equivalence of C. frutescens cream to a homeopathic ointment (one trial, 161 participants, very low quality evidence). Daily doses of Harpagophytum procumbens (devil's claw), standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside, may be better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and may reduce use of rescue medication (two trials, 315 participants, low quality evidence). Another H. procumbens trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (Vioxx®) but was of very low quality (one trial, 88 participants, very low quality). Daily doses of Salix alba (white willow bark), standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin, are probably better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication (two trials, 261 participants, moderate quality evidence). An additional trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (one trial, 228 participants) but was graded as very low quality evidence. S. alba minimally affected platelet thrombosis versus a cardioprotective dose of acetylsalicylate (one trial, 51 participants). One trial (120 participants) examining Symphytum officinale L. (comfrey root extract) found low quality evidence that a Kytta-Salbe comfrey extract ointment is better than placebo ointment for short-term improvements in pain as assessed by VAS. Aromatic lavender essential oil applied by acupressure may reduce subjective pain intensity and improve lateral spine flexion and walking time compared to untreated participants (one trial, 61 participants,very low quality evidence). No significant adverse events were noted within the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nC. frutescens (Cayenne) reduces pain more than placebo. Although H. procumbens, S. alba, S. officinale L., S. chilensis, and lavender essential oil also seem to reduce pain more than placebo, evidence for these substances was of moderate quality at best. Additional well-designed large trials are needed to test these herbal medicines against standard treatments. In general, the completeness of reporting in these trials was poor. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement extension for reporting trials of herbal medicine interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We examined the evidence regarding the effect of herbal medicine on pain in people with non-specific low-back pain (LBP)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3373 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlcohol use and misuse in young people is a major risk behaviour for mortality and morbidity. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a popular technique for addressing excessive drinking in young adults.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of motivational interviewing (MI) interventions for preventing alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems in young adults.\nSearch methods\nWe identified relevant evidence from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2015), EMBASE (January 1988 to July 2015), and PsycINFO (1985 to July 2015). We also searched clinical trial registers and handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials in young adults up to the age of 25 years comparing MIs for prevention of alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems with no intervention, assessment only or alternative interventions for preventing alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 84 trials (22,872 participants), with 70/84 studies reporting interventions in higher risk individuals or settings. Studies with follow-up periods of at least four months were of more interest in assessing the sustainability of intervention effects and were also less susceptible to short-term reporting or publication bias. Overall, the risk of bias assessment showed that these studies provided moderate or low quality evidence.\nAt four or more months follow-up, we found effects in favour of MI for the quantity of alcohol consumed (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.15 to −0.06 or a reduction from 13.7 drinks/week to 12.5 drinks/week; moderate quality evidence); frequency of alcohol consumption (SMD −0.14, 95% CI −0.21 to −0.07 or a reduction in the number of days/week alcohol was consumed from 2.74 days to 2.52 days; moderate quality evidence); and peak blood alcohol concentration, or BAC (SMD −0.12, 95% CI −0.20 to 0.05, or a reduction from 0.144% to 0.131%; moderate quality evidence).\nWe found a marginal effect in favour of MI for alcohol problems (SMD −0.08, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.00 or a reduction in an alcohol problems scale score from 8.91 to 8.18; low quality evidence) and no effects for binge drinking (SMD −0.04, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.02, moderate quality evidence) or for average BAC (SMD −0.05, 95% CI −0.18 to 0.08; moderate quality evidence). We also considered other alcohol-related behavioural outcomes, and at four or more months follow-up, we found no effects on drink-driving (SMD −0.13, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.10; moderate quality of evidence) or other alcohol-related risky behaviour (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.31 to 0.01; moderate quality evidence).\nFurther analyses showed that there was no clear relationship between the duration of the MI intervention (in minutes) and effect size. Subgroup analyses revealed no clear subgroup effects for longer-term outcomes (four or more months) for assessment only versus alternative intervention controls; for university/college vs other settings; or for higher risk vs all/low risk participants.\nNone of the studies reported harms related to MI.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review indicate that there are no substantive, meaningful benefits of MI interventions for preventing alcohol use, misuse or alcohol-related problems. Although we found some statistically significant effects, the effect sizes were too small, given the measurement scales used in the included studies, to be of relevance to policy or practice. Moreover, the statistically significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, and the quality of evidence is not strong, implying that any effects could be inflated by risk of bias.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "the evidence was current to December 2015."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3374 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic inflammatory, multisystem autoimmune condition. Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is a naturally occurring inactive steroid which may possess disease activity modifying properties as well as the ability to reduce flares and steroid requirements.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of dehydroepiandrosterone compared to placebo in the treatment of people with systemic lupus erythematosus.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE, Pub Med, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and ISI Proceedings as well as searching web sites of Genelabs, FDA and EMEA. (Searches undertaken in June 2006 unless otherwise specified).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of at least three months duration comparing DHEA to a placebo in people with SLE.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed quality and extracted data.\nMain results\nFrom the seven RCTs identified (842 participants) to date there is 'gold' ranking evidence (www.cochranemsk.org) that DHEA:\nhad little clinical effect on disease activity in those with mild/moderate disease (measured by SLEDAI or SLAM) but one study demonstrated evidence of stabilisation or improvement in 8.3% more patients than those treated with placebo; \nhad a modest but clinically significant improvement in health related quality of life measured by Patient Global Assessment, estimated as 11.5% (11.5 mm on a 100 mm scale) by meta-analysis; \nresulted in a greater number of patients experiencing adverse events, particularly androgenic effects such as acne where patients risk was doubled when compared to placebo (RR 2.2; 95% CI 1.65 to 2.83)\nAuthors' conclusions\nStudying effectiveness of DHEA for SLE is difficult, reflecting the problems of studying any treatment for a disease as complex as SLE. From the seven RCTs to date, there was evidence that DHEA had a modest but clinically significant impact on health related quality of life in the short term. Impact on disease activity was inconsistent, with DHEA showing no benefit over placebo in terms of change in SLEDAI in all but one of the 6 studies reporting this outcome. Long term outcomes and safety remain unstudied.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone)?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or simply 'lupus' is a group of diseases in which the body's immune system attacks the body. It can affect any organ system involving connective tissue, including the skin, kidneys, eyes, lungs, heart, muscles and bones, nervous system, and gastrointestinal system. The symptoms can range from mild to life-threatening. Lupus occurs mainly in young women, but also in men and children. \nDHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone) is a hormone in the body. People with lupus tend to have lower levels of DHEA, so taking DHEA supplements in pill form may help control the immune system. DHEA might also cut the need for corticosteroid treatment which means less side effects from corticosteroids."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3375 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is a painful musculoskeletal condition, which is characterised by knee pain located in the anterior aspect (front) and retropatellar region (behind) of the knee joint. Various non-operative interventions are suggested for the treatment of this condition. Knee orthoses (knee braces, sleeves, straps or bandages) are worn over the knee and are thought to help reduce knee pain. They can be used in isolation or in addition to other treatments such as exercise or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of knee orthoses (knee braces, sleeves, straps or bandages) for treating PFPS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (11 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015 Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to 8 May 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 2015 Week 18), SPORTDiscus (1985 to 11 May 2015), AMED (1985 to 8 May 2015), CINAHL (1937 to 11 May 2015), PEDro (1929 to June 2015), trial registries and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating knee orthoses for treating people with PFPS. Our primary outcomes were pain and function.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated mean differences (MD) or, where pooling data from different scales, standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs for binary outcomes. We pooled data using the fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included five trials (one of which was quasi-randomised) that reported results for 368 people who had PFPS. Participants were recruited from health clinics in three trials and were military recruits undergoing training in the other two trials. Although no trials recruited participants who were categorised as elite or professional athletes, military training does comprise intensive exercise regimens. All five trials were at high risk of bias, including performance bias reflecting the logistical problems in these trials of blinding of participants and care providers. As assessed using the GRADE approach, the available evidence for all reported outcomes is 'very low' quality. This means that we are very uncertain about the results.\nThe trials covered three different types of comparison: knee orthosis and exercises versus exercises alone; one type of orthosis versus another; and knee orthosis versus exercises. No trials assessed the mode of knee orthosis use, such as whether the orthosis was worn all day or only during physical activity. Two trials had two groups; two trials had three groups; and one trial had four groups.\nAll five trials compared a knee orthosis (knee sleeve, knee brace, or patellar strap) versus a 'no treatment' control group, with all participants receiving exercises, either through a military training programme or a home-based exercise programme. There is very low quality evidence of no clinically important differences between the two groups in short-term (2 to 12 weeks follow-up) knee pain based on the visual analogue scale (0 to 10 points; higher scores mean worse pain): MD -0.46 favouring knee orthoses, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.24; P = 0.19; 234 participants, 3 trials). A similar lack of clinically important difference was found for knee function (183 participants, 2 trials). None of the trials reported on quality of life measures, resource use or participant satisfaction. Although two trials reported on the impact on sporting or occupational participation, one trial (35 participants) did not provide data split by treatment group on the resumption of sport activity and the other reported only on abandonment of military training due to knee pain (both cases were allocated a knee orthosis). One trial (59 participants, 84 affected knees) recording only adverse events in the two knee orthoses (both were knee sleeves) groups, reported 16 knees (36% of 44 knees) had discomfort or skin abrasion.\nThree trials provided very low quality evidence on single comparisons of different types of knee orthoses: a knee brace versus a knee sleeve (63 participants), a patella strap with a knee sleeve (31 participants), and a knee sleeve with a patellar ring versus a knee sleeve only (44 knees). None of three trials found an important difference between the two types of knee orthosis in pain. One trial found no clinically important difference in function between a knee brace and a knee sleeve. None of the three trials reported on quality of life, resource use or participant satisfaction. One trial comparing a patella strap with a knee sleeve reported that both participants quitting military training due to knee pain were allocated a knee sleeve. One poorly reported trial found three times as many knees with adverse effects (discomfort or skin abrasion) in those given knee sleeves with a patella ring than those given knee sleeves only.\nOne trial compared a knee orthosis (knee brace) with exercise (66 participants). It found very low quality evidence of no clinically important difference between the two intervention groups in pain or knee function. The trial did not report on quality of life, impact on sporting or occupational participation, resource use, participant satisfaction or complications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, this review has found a lack of evidence to inform on the use of knee orthoses for treating PFPS. There is, however, very low quality evidence from clinically heterogeneous trials using different types of knee orthoses (knee brace, sleeve and strap) that using a knee orthosis did not reduce knee pain or improve knee function in the short term (under three months) in adults who were also undergoing an exercise programme for treating PFPS. This points to the need for good-quality clinically-relevant research to inform on the use of commonly-available knee orthoses for treating PFPS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched electronic databases and other sources up to June 2015 and found five relevant studies that reported the results for 368 adults with PFPS. Participants were recruited from health clinics in three studies and were military trainees in the other two studies. All five studies were small and at high risk of bias, which means that their findings may not be reliable.\nThe studies covered three different types of comparison: knee orthosis and exercises versus exercises alone; one type of orthosis versus another; and knee orthosis versus exercises. No study assessed the mode of knee orthosis use, such as whether the orthosis was worn all day or only during physical activity."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3376 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnxiety disorders are a potentially disabling group of disorders that frequently co-occur with alcohol use disorders. Comorbid anxiety and alcohol use disorders are associated with poorer outcomes, and are difficult to treat with standard psychosocial interventions. In addition, improved understanding of the biological basis of the conditions has contributed to a growing interest in the use of medications for the treatment of people with both diagnoses.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacotherapy for treating anxiety in people with comorbid alcohol use disorders, specifically: to provide an estimate of the overall effects of medication in improving treatment response and reducing symptom severity in the treatment of anxiety disorders in people with comorbid alcohol use disorders; to determine whether specific medications are more effective and tolerable than other medications in the treatment of particular anxiety disorders; and to identify which factors (clinical, methodological) predict response to pharmacotherapy for anxiety disorders.\nSearch methods\nReview authors searched the specialized registers of The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDANCTR, to January 2014) and the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG, to March 2013) for eligible trials. These registers contain reports of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) from: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Review authors ran complementary searches on EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO and the Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (ETOH) (to August 2013). We located unpublished trials through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER service and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to August 2013). We screened reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll true RCTs of pharmacotherapy for treating anxiety disorders with comorbid alcohol use disorders. Trials assessing drugs administered for the treatment of drinking behaviour, such as naltrexone, disulfiram and acamprosate were not eligible for inclusion in this systematic review.\nData collection and analysis\nA systematic review is a standardised evaluation of all research studies that address a particular clinical issue.\nTwo review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion in the review, collated trial data and assessed trial quality. We contacted investigators to obtain missing data. We calculated categorical and continuous treatment effect estimates and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for treatment using a random-effects model with effect-size variability expressed using Chi2 and I2 heterogeneity statistics.\nMain results\nWe included five placebo-controlled pharmacotherapy RCTs (with 290 participants) in the review. Most of the trials provided little information on how randomization was performed or on whether both participants and study personnel were blinded to the intervention. Two of the three trials reporting superiority of medication compared with placebo on anxiety symptom outcomes were industry funded. We regarded one trial as being at high risk of bias due to selective reporting.\nStudy participants had Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) III- and DSM IV-diagnosed alcohol use disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder (two studies), social anxiety disorder (SAD; two studies) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; one study). Four trials assessed the efficacy of the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs: sertraline, paroxetine); one RCT investigated the efficacy of buspirone, a 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) partial agonist. Treatment duration lasted between eight and 24 weeks. Overall, 70% of participants included in the review were male.\nThere was very low quality evidence for an effect of paroxetine on global clinical response to treatment, as assessed by the Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement scale (CGI-I). Global clinical response was observed in more than twice as many participants with paroxetine than with placebo (57.7% with paroxetine versus 25.8% with placebo; risk ratio (RR) 2.23, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.41; 2 trials, 57 participants). However, there was substantial uncertainty regarding the size of the effect of paroxetine due to the small number of studies providing data on clinically diverse patient samples. The second primary outcome measure was reduction of anxiety symptom severity. Although study investigators reported that buspirone (one trial) was superior to placebo in reducing the severity of anxiety symptoms over 12 weeks, no evidence of efficacy was observed for paroxetine (mean difference (MD) -14.70, 95% CI -33.00 to 3.60, 2 trials, 44 participants) and sertraline (one trial). Paroxetine appeared to be equally effective in reducing the severity of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms as the tricyclic antidepressant desipramine in one RCT. The maximal reduction in anxiety disorder symptom severity was achieved after six weeks with paroxetine (two RCTs) and 12 weeks with buspirone (one RCT), with maintenance of medication efficacy extending to 16 with paroxetine and 24 weeks with buspirone. There was no evidence of an effect for any of the medications tested on abstinence from alcohol use or depression symptoms. There was very low quality evidence that paroxetine was well tolerated, based on drop-out due to treatment-emergent adverse effects. Nevertheless, levels of treatment discontinuation were high, with 43.1% of the participants in the studies withdrawing from medication treatment. Certain adverse effects, such as sexual problems, were commonly reported after treatment with paroxetine and sertraline.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence-base for the effectiveness of medication in treating anxiety disorders and comorbid alcohol use disorders is currently inconclusive. There was a small amount of evidence for the efficacy of medication, but this was limited and of very low quality. The majority of the data for the efficacy and tolerability of medication were for SSRIs; there were insufficient data to establish differences in treatment efficacy between medication classes or patient subgroups. There was a small amount of very low quality evidence that medication was well tolerated. There was no evidence that alcohol use was responsive to medication.\nLarge, rigorously conducted RCTs would help supplement the small evidence-base for the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacotherapy for anxiety and comorbid alcohol use disorders. Further research on patient subgroups who may benefit from pharmacological treatment, as well as novel pharmacological interventions, is warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who may be interested in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "People with anxiety disorders and alcohol use problems, as well as their healthcare providers."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3377 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nImbalance of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) and related modulators has been implicated as an important factor in the pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is also known as motor neuron disease (MND). In this context, the role and mechanism of action of gabapentin and baclofen have been extensively investigated, although with conflicting results. This is the first systematic review to assess clinical trials of GABA modulators for the treatment of ALS.\nObjectives\nTo examine the efficacy of gabapentin, baclofen, or other GABA modulators in delaying the progression of ALS, and to evaluate adverse effects of these interventions.\nSearch methods\nOn 16 August 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, AMED, and LILACS. In addition, we checked the bibliographies of the trials found in order to identify any other trials, and contacted trial authors to identify relevant unpublished results or additional clinical trials. On 30 August 2016, we searched two clinical trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nTypes of studies: double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs\nTypes of participants: adults with a diagnosis of probable or definite ALS\nTypes of interventions: gabapentin, baclofen, or other GABA modulators compared with placebo, no treatment, or each other\nPrimary outcome: survival at one year from study enrollment\nSecondary outcomes: individual rate of decline of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), expressed as arm megascore; rate of decline of per cent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC); rate of decline of ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS); health-related quality of life; survival evaluated by pooling hazards; and adverse events\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently checked titles and abstracts identified by the searches. The review authors obtained and independently analyzed original individual participant data from each included study; additional review authors and the Cochrane Neuromuscular Managing Editor checked the outcome data. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in included studies.\nMain results\nWe identified two double-blind RCTs of gabapentin treatment in ALS for inclusion in this review. We found no eligible RCTs of baclofen or other GABA modulators. The selected studies were phase II and phase III trials, which lasted six and nine months, respectively. They were highly comparable because both were comparisons of oral gabapentin and placebo, performed by the same investigators. The trials enrolled 355 participants with ALS: 80 in the gabapentin group and 72 in the placebo group in the first (phase II) trial and 101 in the gabapentin group and 102 in the placebo group in the second (phase III) trial. Neither trial was long enough to report survival at one year, which was our primary outcome. We found little or no difference in estimated one-year survival between the treated group and the placebo group (78% versus 77%, P = 0.63 by log-rank test; high-quality evidence). We also found little or no difference in the rate of decline of MVIC expressed as arm megascore, or rate of FVC decline (high-quality evidence). One trial investigated monthly decline in the ALSFRS and quality of life measured using the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) and found little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality evidence). The trials reported similar adverse events. Complaints that were clearly elevated in those taking gabapentin, based on analyses of the combined data, were light-headedness, drowsiness, and limb swelling (high-quality evidence). Fatigue and falls occurred more frequently with gabapentin than with placebo in one trial, but when we combined the data for fatigue from both trials, there was no clear difference between the groups. We assessed the overall risk of bias in the included trials as low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAccording to high-quality evidence, gabapentin is not effective in treating ALS. It does not extend survival, slow the rate of decline of muscle strength, respiratory function and, based on moderate-quality evidence, probably does not improve quality of life or slow monthly decline in the ALSFRS. Other GABA modulators have not been studied in randomized trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Do medicines that promote the effects of the brain chemical gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) delay the progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3378 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAdherence to treatment, including inhaled therapies, is low in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Although psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF have been developed, no previous published systematic review has evaluated the evidence for efficacy of these interventions.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of the review was to assess the efficacy of psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). The secondary objective was to establish the most effective components, or behaviour change techniques (BCTs), used in these interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, which is compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.\nWe also searched databases (PubMed; PsycINFO; EBSCO; Scopus; OpenGrey), trials registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov), and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, with no restrictions on language, year or publication status.\nDate of search: 7 August 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF of any age, or comparing psychological interventions with usual care. We included quasi-RCTs if we could reasonably assume that the baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and completed data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and BCT coding (using the BCT Taxonomy v1) for all included trials. We resolved any discrepancies by discussion, or by consultation with a third review author as necessary. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 10 trials (1642 participants) in the review (children and adolescents in four trials; adults in five trials; and children and adults in one trial). Nine trials compared a psychological intervention with usual care; we could combine data from some of these in a number of quantitative analyses. One trial compared a psychological intervention with an active comparator (education plus problem-solving (EPS)). We identified five ongoing trials.\nPsychological interventions were generally multi-component and complex, containing an average of 9.6 BCTs (range 1 to 28). The two most commonly used BCTs included 'problem-solving' and 'instruction on how to perform the behaviour'. Interventions varied in their type, content and mode of delivery. They included a problem-solving intervention; a paper-based self-management workbook; a telehealth intervention; a group training programme; a digital intervention comprising medication reminders and lung function self-monitoring; a life-coaching intervention; a motivational interviewing (MI) intervention; a brief MI intervention (behaviour change counselling); and a digital intervention combined with behaviour change sessions. Intervention duration ranged from 10 weeks to 12 months. Assessment time points ranged from six to eight weeks up to 23 months.\nPsychological interventions compared with usual care\nWe report data here for the 'over six months and up to 12 months' time point. We found that psychological interventions probably improve adherence to inhaled therapies (primary outcome) in people with CF compared with usual care (mean difference (MD) 9.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.60 to 10.40; 1 study, 588 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in our second primary outcome, treatment-related adverse events: anxiety (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.00; 1 study, 535 participants), or depression (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.60; 1 study, 534 participants), although this was low-certainty evidence. For our secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in terms of lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted MD 1.40, 95% CI -0.20 to 3.00; 1 study, 556 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of pulmonary exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.11; 1 study, 607 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or respiratory symptoms (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.40 to 3.80; 1 study, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, psychological interventions may improve treatment burden (MD 3.90, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.60; 1 study, 539 participants; low-certainty evidence). The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to moderate across these outcomes. Reasons for downgrading included indirectness (current evidence included adults only whereas our review question was broader and focused on people of any age) and lack of blinding of outcome assessors.\nPsychological interventions compared with an active comparator\nFor this comparison the overall certainty of evidence was very low, based on one trial (n = 128) comparing an MI intervention to EPS for 12 months. We are uncertain whether an MI intervention, compared with EPS, improves adherence to inhaled therapies, lung function, or quality of life in people with CF, or whether there is an effect on pulmonary exacerbations. The included trial for this comparison did not report on treatment-related adverse events (anxiety and depression). We downgraded all reported outcomes due to small participant numbers, indirectness (trials included only adults), and unclear risk of bias (e.g. selection and attrition bias).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the limited quantity of trials included in this review, as well as the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, it was not possible to identify an overall intervention effect using meta-analysis. Some moderate-certainty evidence suggests that psychological interventions (compared with usual care) probably improve adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF, without increasing treatment-related adverse events, anxiety and depression (low-certainty evidence). In future review updates (with ongoing trial results included), we hope to be able to establish the most effective BCTs (or 'active ingredients') of interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF.\nWherever possible, investigators should make use of the most objective measures of adherence available (e.g. data-logging nebulisers) to accurately determine intervention effects. Outcome reporting needs to be improved to enable combining or separation of measures as appropriate. Likewise, trial reporting needs to include details of intervention content (e.g. BCTs used); duration; intensity; and fidelity. Large trials with a longer follow-up period (e.g. 12 months) are needed in children with CF. Additionally, more research is needed to determine how to support adherence in 'under-served' CF populations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Can psychological interventions help people with CF to take their inhaled treatments, and are there any harmful or unwanted effects of these interventions (e.g. anxiety or depression)?\nWhich techniques (e.g. goal-setting, problem-solving) work best at helping people with CF to take their inhaled treatments?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3379 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPolycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) occurs in 4% to 7% of all women of reproductive age and 50% of women presenting with subfertility. Subfertility affects 15% to 20% of couples trying to conceive. A significant proportion of these women ultimately need assisted reproductive technology (ART). In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is one of the assisted reproduction techniques employed to raise the chances of achieving a pregnancy. For the standard IVF technique, stimulating follicle development and growth before oocyte retrieval is essential, for which a large number of different methods combining gonadotrophins with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist are used. In women with PCOS, the supra-physiological doses of gonadotrophins used for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) often result in an exaggerated ovarian response, characterised by the development of a large cohort of follicles of uneven quality, retrieval of immature oocytes, and increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). A potentially effective intervention for women with PCOS-related subfertility involves earlier retrieval of immature oocytes at the germinal-vesicle stage followed by in vitro maturation (IVM). So far, the only data available have derived from observational studies and non-randomised clinical trials.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of IVM followed by IVF or ICSI versus conventional IVF or ICSI among women with PCOS undergoing assisted reproduction.\nSearch methods\nThis is the second update of this review. We performed the search on 17 April 2018.\nThe search was designed with the help of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Information Specialist, for all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nWe searched the the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the trial registers for ongoing and registered trials and the Open Grey database for grey literature from Europe. We made further searches in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) fertility assessment and treatment guidelines. We handsearched reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and RCTs, together with PubMed and Google for any recent trials that have not yet been indexed in the major databases.\nSelection criteria\nAll RCTs on the intention to perform IVM before IVF or ICSI compared with conventional IVF or ICSI for subfertile women with PCOS, irrespective of language and country of origin.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from studies, and attempted to contact the authors of studies for which data were missing. Our primary outcomes were live birth per woman randomised and miscarriage. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe found two RCTs suitable for inclusion in the review and six ongoing trials that have not yet reported results. Both included studies were published as abstracts in international conferences.\nBoth studies were at unclear or high risk of bias for most of the seven domains assessed. Common problems were unclear reporting of study methods and lack of blinding. The main limitations in the overall quality of the evidence were high risk of bias and serious imprecision.\nThere were no data on the primary outcomes of this review, namely live birth per woman randomised and miscarriage.\nBoth studies reported clinical pregnancy rate: there was evidence of an effect between IVM and IVF, favouring the former (odds ratio 3.10, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 9.00; 71 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). The incidence of OHSS was zero in both studies in both groups.\nThere were no data for the other outcomes specified in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThough promising data on the in vitro maturation (IVM) technique have been published, unfortunately there is still no evidence from properly conducted randomised controlled trials upon which to base any practice recommendations regarding IVM before in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection for women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Regarding our secondary outcomes, very low-quality evidence showed that clinical pregnancy was higher with IVM when compared to IVF, whereas the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was zero in both studies in both groups. We are awaiting the results of six ongoing trials and eagerly anticipate further evidence from good-quality trials in the field.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We performed a comprehensive literature search of the standard medical databases (from database inception to 17 April 2018) in consultation with the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Information Specialist, for all randomised controlled trials (studies in which participants are assigned to a treatment group using a random method) investigating the efficiency of IVM compared to conventional ART in subfertile women with PCOS. We searched for and included studies irrespective of language and country of origin. Two review authors independently selected and evaluated studies, extracted data, and attempted to contact the authors of studies for which data were missing. We found two studies (71 women), published as abstracts in international conferences, and six ongoing trials that met our inclusion requirements."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3380 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDietary supplementation with prebiotic oligosaccharides to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of enteral supplementation with prebiotics (versus placebo or no treatment) for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), from the earliest records to July 2022. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing prebiotics with placebo or no prebiotics in very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation) or VLBW (< 1500 g) infants. The primary outcomes were NEC and all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were late-onset invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation since birth, and neurodevelopmental impairment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors separately evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference (MD), with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes of interest were NEC and all-cause mortality; our secondary outcome measures were late-onset (> 48 hours after birth) invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation, and neurodevelopmental impairment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the level of certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials in which a total of 705 infants participated. All the trials were small (mean sample size 100). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were potential sources of bias in three of the trials. The studied prebiotics were fructo- and galacto-oligosaccharides, inulin, and lactulose, typically administered daily with enteral feeds during birth hospitalisation.\nMeta-analyses of data from seven trials (686 infants) suggest that prebiotics may result in little or no difference in NEC (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.56; RD none fewer per 1000, 95% CI 50 fewer to 40 more; low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.92; 40 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 70 fewer to none fewer; low-certainty evidence), or late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.06; 50 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 100 fewer to 10 more; low-certainty evidence) prior to hospital discharge. The certainty of this evidence is low because of concerns about the risk of bias in some trials and the imprecision of the effect size estimates. The data available from one trial provided only very low-certainty evidence about the effect of prebiotics on measures of neurodevelopmental impairment (Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) Mental Development Index score < 85: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.90; very low-certainty evidence; BSID Psychomotor Development Index score < 85: RR 0.24, 95% 0.03 to 2.00; very low-certainty evidence; cerebral palsy: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.35; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available trial data provide low-certainty evidence about the effects of prebiotics on the risk of NEC, all-cause mortality before discharge, and invasive infection, and very low-certainty evidence about the effect on neurodevelopmental impairment for very preterm or VLBW infants. Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited; the true effects may be substantially different. Large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity to inform policy and practice decisions.\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 July 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3381 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCommunity-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care.\nSearch methods\nMEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs.\nPWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs).\nData collection and analysis\nSeven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs).\nRisk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes.\nFor SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects.\nAnalysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1-6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post-intervention.\nMain results\nDescription of studies\n95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs).\nRisk of bias\nMost common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination.\nIntervention effects\n*Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2.\n“Probably”, “may”, or “uncertain” indicates \"moderate\", \"low,\" or \"very low\" certainty evidence.\nAdults with common mental disorders (CMDs)\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56);\nb. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96);\nc. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16);\nd. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69);\ne. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15);\nf. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts);\ng. may have uncertain effects on SU.\nCollaborative-care\na. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43);\nb. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01);\nc. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08);\nd. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53);\ne. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03);\nf. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists);\ng. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death).\nWomen with perinatal depression (PND)\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54);\nb. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14);\nc. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04);\nd. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death);\ne. may have uncertain effects on SU.\nCollaborative-care\na. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs.\nAdults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings\nLHW-led interventions\na. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15);\nb. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15);\nc. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs.\nPHP-led interventions\na. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08);\nb. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.\nAdults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74);\nb. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03);\nc. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11);\nd. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs.\nPHP/CP-led interventions\na. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10);\nb. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence);\nc. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs.\nPW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence\na. may have uncertain effects.\nAdults with severe mental disorders\n*Comparisons were specialist-led care at T1.\nLHW-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11);\nb. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.\nPHP-led or collaborative-care\na. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47);\nb. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU.\nAdults with dementia and carers\nPHP/LHW-led carer interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08);\nb. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13);\nc. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs.\nChildren with PTS or CMDs\nLHW-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14);\nb. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13);\nc. may have little-or-no effect on AEs.\nCP-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs;\nb. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"5. Adults with severe mental disorders (e.g. schizophrenia)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Treatments from lay health workers compared to mental specialists alone:\na. may have little to no effect on caregiver burden.\nTreatments from primary health professionals alone or in collaboration with mental health specialists:\na. may improve day-to-day functioning."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3382 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPostnatal depression is a common disorder that can have adverse short- and long-term effects on maternal morbidity, the new infant and the family as a whole. Treatment is often largely by social support and psychological interventions. It is not known whether antidepressants are an effective and safe choice for treatment of this disorder. This review was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of different antidepressants and to compare their effectiveness with other forms of treatment, placebo or treatment as usual. It is an update of a review first published in 2001.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs in comparison with any other treatment (psychological, psychosocial or pharmacological), placebo or treatment as usual for postnatal depression.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR) to 11 July 2014. This register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE, (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We also searched international trial registries and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs of women with depression with onset up to six months postpartum that compared antidepressant treatment (alone or in combination with another treatment) with any other treatment, placebo or treatment as usual.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the trial reports. We requested missing information from investigators wherever possible. We sought data to allow an intention-to-treat analysis. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool data where sufficient comparable studies were identified.\nMain results\nWe included six trials with 596 participants in this review. All studies had a randomised controlled parallel group design, with two conducted in the UK, three in the US and one in Israel. Meta-analyses were performed to pool data on response and remission from studies comparing antidepressants with placebo. No meta-analyses could be conducted for other comparisons due to the small number of trials identified.\nFour studies compared selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with placebo (two using sertraline, one using paroxetine and one using fluoxetine; 233 participants in total). In two of these studies both the experimental and placebo groups also received psychological therapy. Pooled risk ratios based on data from three of these studies (146 participants) showed that women randomised to SSRIs had higher rates of response and remission than those randomised to placebo (response: RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.03; remission: RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.98); the fourth study did not report data on response or remission.\nOne study (254 participants) compared antidepressant treatment with treatment as usual (for the first four weeks) followed by listening visits. The study found significantly higher rates of improvement in the antidepressant group than treatment-as-usual group after the first four weeks, but no difference between antidepressants and listening visits at the later follow-up. In addition, one study comparing sertraline with nortriptyline (a tricyclic antidepressant) found no difference in effectiveness (109 participants).\nSide effects were experienced by a substantial proportion of women, but there was no evidence of a meaningful difference in the number of adverse effects between treatment arms in any study. There were very limited data on adverse effects experienced by breastfed infants, with no long-term follow-up. All but one of the studies were assessed as being at high or uncertain risk of attrition bias and selective outcome reporting. In particular, one of the placebo-controlled studies had over 50% drop-out.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence base for this review was very limited, with a small number of studies and little information on a number of important outcomes, particularly regarding potential effects on the child. Risk of bias, for example from high attrition rates, as well as low representativeness of participants (e.g. exclusion of women with severe or chronic depression in several trials) also limit the conclusions that can be drawn.\nPooled estimates for response and remission found that SSRIs were significantly more effective than placebo for women with postnatal depression. However the quality of evidence contributing to this comparison was assessed as very low owing to the small sample size for this comparison (146 participants from three studies), the risk of bias in included studes and the inclusion of one study where all participants in both study arms additionally received psychological therapy. There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether, and for whom, antidepressant or psychological/psychosocial treatments are more effective, or whether some antidepressants are more effective or better tolerated than others. There is also inadequate evidence on whether the benefits of antidepressants persist beyond eight weeks or whether they have short- or long-term adverse effects on breastfeeding infants.\nProfessionals treating women with severe depression in the postnatal period will need to draw on other evidence, including trials among general adult populations and observational studies of antidepressant safety when breastfeeding (although the potential for confounding in non-randomised studies must be considered). More RCTs are needed with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up, including assessment of the impact on the child and safety of breastfeeding. Further larger-scale trials comparing antidepressants with alternative treatment modalities are also required.\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": "Parents, professionals in primary care services who work with women of reproductive age, general practitioners, professionals in adult mental health services who work with women of reproductive age and professionals working in perinatal mental health services."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3383 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAdjuvant tamoxifen reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence in women with oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Tamoxifen also increases the risk of postmenopausal bleeding, endometrial polyps, hyperplasia, and endometrial cancer. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) causes profound endometrial suppression. This systematic review considered the evidence that the LNG-IUS prevents the development of endometrial pathology in women taking tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in pre- and postmenopausal women taking adjuvant tamoxifen following breast cancer for the outcomes of endometrial and uterine pathology including abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting, and secondary breast cancer events.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 29 June 2020; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group specialised register on 4 March 2020. We also searched two trials registers, checked references for relevant trials and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with breast cancer on adjuvant tamoxifen that compared the effectiveness of the LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance versus endometrial surveillance alone on the incidence of endometrial pathology.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome measure was endometrial pathology (including polyps, endometrial hyperplasia, or endometrial cancer), diagnosed at hysteroscopy or endometrial biopsy. Secondary outcome measures included fibroids, abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting, breast cancer recurrence, and breast cancer-related deaths. We rated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs (543 women analysed) in this review. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be moderate for all of the outcomes, due to imprecision (i.e. limited sample sizes and low event rates). In the included studies, the active treatment arm was the 20 μg/day LNG-IUS plus endometrial surveillance; the control arm was endometrial surveillance alone.\nIn tamoxifen users, the LNG-IUS probably reduces the incidence of endometrial polyps compared to the control group over both a 12-month period (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.64, I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, n = 212; moderate-certainty evidence) and over a long-term follow-up period (24 to 60 months) (Peto OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.39; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, n = 417; moderate-certainty evidence). For long-term follow-up, this suggests that if the incidence of endometrial polyps following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 23.5%, the incidence following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 3.8% and 10.7%.\nThe LNG-IUS probably slightly reduces the incidence of endometrial hyperplasia compared with controls over a long-term follow-up period (24 to 60 months) (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.67; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, n = 417; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of endometrial hyperplasia following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 2.8%, the chance following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 0.1% and 1.9%. However, it should be noted that there were only six cases of endometrial hyperplasia.\nThere was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding the incidence of endometrial cancer in tamoxifen users, as no studies reported cases of endometrial cancer.\nAt 12 months of follow-up, the LNG-IUS probably increases abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting compared to the control group (Peto OR 7.26, 95% CI 3.37 to 15.66; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 376; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 1.7%, the chance following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 5.6% and 21.5%. By 24 months of follow-up, abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting occurs less frequently than at 12 months of follow-up, but is still more common in the LNG-IUS group than the control group (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.10; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, n = 233; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 4.2%, the chance following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 4.4% and 23.9%. By 60 months of follow-up, there were no cases of abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting in either group.\nThe numbers of events for the following outcomes were low: fibroids (n = 13), breast cancer recurrence (n = 18), and breast cancer-related deaths (n = 16). As a result, there is probably little or no difference in these outcomes between the LNG-IUS treatment group and the control group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe LNG-IUS probably slightly reduces the incidence of benign endometrial polyps and endometrial hyperplasia in women with breast cancer taking tamoxifen. At 12 and 24 months of follow-up, the LNG-IUS probably increases abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting among women in the treatment group compared to those in the control. Data were lacking on whether the LNG-IUS prevents endometrial cancer in these women. There is no clear evidence from the available RCTs that the LNG-IUS affects the risk of breast cancer recurrence or breast cancer-related deaths. Larger studies are necessary to assess the effects of the LNG-IUS on the incidence of endometrial cancer, and to determine whether the LNG-IUS might have an impact on the risk of secondary breast cancer events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included four randomised controlled trials involving 543 women. The studies took place in the UK, Turkey, Egypt and Hong Kong, and the primary outcome in all studies was abnormal changes in the lining of the uterus. Three studies reported on the outcome of fibroids. Three studies reported on abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting. Two studies reported on breast cancer recurrence, and three studies reported on breast cancer-related death. The evidence is current to June 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3384 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLong-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including intrauterine devices (IUDs) and contraceptive implants, are highly effective, reversible methods of contraception. Providing LARC methods during the postpartum period is important to support contraceptive choice, and to prevent unintended pregnancy and short interpregnancy intervals. Delaying offering contraception to postpartum people until the first comprehensive postpartum visit, traditionally at around six weeks postpartum, may put some postpartum people at risk of unintended pregnancy, either due to loss to follow-up or because of initiation of sexual intercourse prior to receiving contraception. Therefore, immediate provision of highly effective contraception, prior to discharge from hospital, has the potential to improve contraceptive use and prevent unintended pregnancies and short interpregnancy intervals.\nObjectives\nTo compare the initiation rate, utilization rates (at six months and 12 months after delivery), effectiveness, and adverse effects of immediate versus delayed postpartum insertion of implants and IUDs for contraception.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and POPLINE for eligible studies up to December 2020. We examined review articles and contacted investigators. We checked registers of ongoing clinical trials, citation lists of included studies, key textbooks, grey literature, and previous systematic reviews for potentially relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immediate postpartum versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implant and IUDs for contraception.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (JS, SK) independently screened titles and abstracts of the search results, and assessed the full-text articles of potentially relevant studies for inclusion. They extracted data from the included studies, assessed risk of bias, compared results, and resolved disagreements by consulting a third review author (PL, SA or PP). We contacted investigators for additional data, where possible. We computed the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables.\nMain results\nIn this updated review, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria; five were studies of contraceptive implants (715 participants) and 11 were studies of IUDs (1894 participants). We identified 12 ongoing studies. We applied GRADE judgements to our results; the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome ranged from moderate to very low, with the main limitations being risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.\nContraceptive implants\nImmediate insertion probably improves the initiation rate for contraceptive implants compared with delayed insertion (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98; 5 studies, 715 participants; I2 = 95%; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain if there was a difference between the two groups for the utilization rate of contraceptive implants at six months after delivery (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.50; 3 studies, 330 participants; I2 = 89%; very low-certainty evidence) or at 12 months after insertion (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04; 2 studies, 164 participants; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).\nPeople who received an immediate postpartum contraceptive implant insertion may have had a higher mean number of days of prolonged vaginal bleeding within six weeks postpartum (mean difference (MD) 2.98 days, 95% CI -2.71 to 8.66; 2 studies, 420 participants; I2 = 91%; low-certainty evidence) and a higher rate of other adverse effects in the first six weeks after birth (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.06; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence) than those who received a delayed postpartum insertion. We are uncertain if there was a difference between the two groups for prolonged bleeding at six months after delivery (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.94; 2 studies, 252 participants; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).\nThere may be little or no difference between the two groups for rates of unintended pregnancy at six months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.08; one study, 205 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there was a difference in rates of unintended pregnancy at 12 months postpartum (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.71; 1 study, 64 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the two groups for any breastfeeding rates at six months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; 2 studies, 225 participants; I2 = 48%; low-certainty evidence).\nIUDs\nImmediate insertion of IUDs probably improves the initiation rate compared with delayed insertion, regardless of type of IUD (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.51; 10 studies, 1894 participants; I2 = 98%; moderate-certainty evidence). However, people who received an immediate postpartum IUD insertion may have had a higher expulsion rate at six months after delivery (RR 4.55, 95% CI 2.52 to 8.19; 8 studies, 1206 participants; I2 = 31%; low-certainty evidence) than those who received a delayed postpartum insertion.\nWe are uncertain if there was a difference between the two groups in the utilization of IUDs at six months after insertion (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.62; 6 studies, 971 participants; I2 = 96%; very low-certainty evidence) or at 12 months after insertion (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.47; 3 studies, 796 participants; I2 = 92%; very low-certainty evidence).\nImmediate IUDs insertion may reduce unintended pregnancy at 12 months (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.41; 1 study, 1000 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there was difference in any breastfeeding rates at six months in people receiving progestin-releasing IUDs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 5 studies, 435 participants; I2 = 54%; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from this updated review indicates that immediate postpartum insertion improves the initiation rate of both contraceptive implants and IUDs by the first postpartum visit compared to delayed insertion. However, it is not clear whether that there are differences in utilization rates at six and 12 months postpartum. We are uncertain whether there is any difference in the unintended pregnancy rate at 12 months. Provision of progestin-releasing implants and IUDs immediately postpartum may have little or no negative impact on breastfeeding. However, the expulsion rate of IUDs and prolonged vaginal bleeding associated with immediate implants appears to be higher.\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 for the different results ranges from moderate to uncertain. This is because people in the studies were aware of when their implants or IUDs were inserted, which may have affected reporting of some outcomes, and because of the dropout rate from the studies. Also, not all of the studies provided data about everything in which we were interested, which meant some results are based on a lower number of people."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3385 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEvidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these.\nObjectives\nObjective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic.\nObjective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic.\nSearch methods\nOn 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together.\nMain results\nWe included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies).\nObjective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout.\nObjective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review includes studies published up to 28 May 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3386 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTrachoma is the leading infectious cause of blindness. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends eliminating trachomatous blindness through the SAFE strategy: Surgery for trichiasis, Antibiotic treatment, Facial cleanliness and Environmental hygiene. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for trachomatous trichiasis for people living in endemic settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 7 May 2015. We searched the reference lists of included studies to identify further potentially relevant studies. We also contacted authors for details of other relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials of any intervention intended to treat trachomatous trichiasis.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently selected and assessed the trials, including the risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for missing data when necessary. Our primary outcome was post-operative trichiasis which was defined as any lash touching the globe at three months, one year or two years after surgery.\nMain results\nThirteen studies met the inclusion criteria with 8586 participants. Most of the studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. The majority of the studies were of a low or unclear risk of bias.\nFive studies compared different surgical interventions. Most surgical interventions were performed by non-physician technicians. These trials suggest the most effective surgery is full-thickness incision of the tarsal plate and rotation of the terminal tarsal strip. Pooled data from two studies suggested that the bilamellar rotation was more effective than unilamellar rotation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.50). Use of a lid clamp reduced lid contour abnormalities (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.98) and granuloma formation (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.97). Absorbable sutures gave comparable outcomes to silk sutures (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20) and were associated with less frequent granuloma formation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.99). Epilation was less effective at preventing eyelashes from touching the globe than surgery for mild trichiasis, but had comparable results for vision and corneal change. Peri-operative azithromycin reduced post-operative trichiasis; however, the estimate of effect was imprecise and compatible with no effect or increased trichiasis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; 1954 eyes; 3 studies). Community-based surgery when compared to health centres increased uptake with comparable outcomes. Surgery performed by ophthalmologists and integrated eye care workers was comparable. Adverse events were typically infrequent or mild and included rare postoperative infections, eyelid contour abnormalities and conjunctival granulomas.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo trials were designed to evaluate whether the interventions for trichiasis prevent blindness as an outcome; however, several found modest improvement in vision following intervention. Certain interventions have been shown to be more effective at eliminating trichiasis. Full-thickness incision of the tarsal plate and rotation of the lash-bearing lid margin was found to be the best technique and is preferably delivered in the community. Surgery may be carried out by an ophthalmologist or a trained ophthalmic assistant. Surgery performed with silk or absorbable sutures gave comparable results. Post-operative azithromycin was found to improve outcomes where overall recurrence was low.\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 13 randomised controlled trials. They were all conducted in trachoma-endemic countries (mostly in sub-Saharan Africa) with surgical interventions carried out by non-physician surgeons. Five studies compared different surgical treatments. Three studies investigated whether azithromycin antibiotic treatment after surgery improves the results. One study compared different types of sutures. One study compared surgery to the pulling out of eyelashes (epilation). One study compared the outcomes of treatments provided in the community with hospital care. One study compared the results of surgery performed by eye doctors with those of non-specialist technicians. The evidence is current to May 2015. Most studies were funded by government research councils or charitable foundations."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3387 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBlood transfusion is administered during many types of surgery, but its efficacy and safety are increasingly questioned. Evaluation of the efficacy of agents, such as desmopressin (DDAVP; 1-deamino-8-D-arginine-vasopressin), that may reduce perioperative blood loss is needed.\nObjectives\nTo examine the evidence for the efficacy of DDAVP in reducing perioperative blood loss and the need for red cell transfusion in people who do not have inherited bleeding disorders.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2017, issue 3) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases (all searches to 3 April 2017).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing DDAVP to placebo or an active comparator (e.g. tranexamic acid, aprotinin) before, during, or immediately after surgery or after invasive procedures in adults or children.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified 65 completed trials (3874 participants) and four ongoing trials. Of the 65 completed trials, 39 focused on adult cardiac surgery, three on paediatric cardiac surgery, 12 on orthopaedic surgery, two on plastic surgery, and two on vascular surgery; seven studies were conducted in surgery for other conditions. These trials were conducted between 1986 and 2016, and 11 were funded by pharmaceutical companies or by a party with a commercial interest in the outcome of the trial.\nThe GRADE quality of evidence was very low to moderate across all outcomes. No trial reported quality of life.\nDDAVP versus placebo or no treatment\nTrial results showed considerable heterogeneity between surgical settings for total volume of red cells transfused (low-quality evidence) and for total blood loss (very low-quality evidence) due to large differences in baseline blood loss. Consequently, these outcomes were not pooled and were reported in subgroups.\nCompared with placebo, DDAVP may slightly decrease the total volume of red cells transfused in adult cardiac surgery (mean difference (MD) -0.52 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.96 to -0.08 units; 14 trials, 957 participants), but may lead to little or no difference in orthopaedic surgery (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.64 units; 6 trials, 303 participants), vascular surgery (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.73 units; 2 trials, 135 participants), or hepatic surgery (MD -0.47, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.33 units; 1 trial, 59 participants).\nDDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in the total number of participants transfused with blood (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; 25 trials; 1806 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).\nWhether DDAVP decreases total blood loss in adult cardiac surgery (MD -135.24 mL, 95% CI -210.80 mL to -59.68 mL; 22 trials, 1358 participants), orthopaedic surgery (MD -285.76 mL, 95% CI -514.99 mL to -56.53 mL; 5 trials, 241 participants), or vascular surgery (MD -582.00 mL, 95% CI -1264.07 mL to 100.07 mL; 1 trial, 44 participants) is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low.\nDDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (Peto odds ratio (pOR) 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.34; 22 trials, 1631 participants) or in thrombotic events (pOR 1.36, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.16; 29 trials, 1984 participants) (both low-quality evidence).\nDDAVP versus placebo or no treatment for people with platelet dysfunction\nCompared with placebo, DDAVP may lead to a reduction in the total volume of red cells transfused (MD -0.65 units, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13 units; 6 trials, 388 participants) (low-quality evidence) and in total blood loss (MD -253.93 mL, 95% CI -408.01 mL to -99.85 mL; 7 trials, 422 participants) (low-quality evidence).\nDDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in the total number of participants receiving a red cell transfusion (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04; 5 trials, 258 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).\nWhether DDAVP leads to a difference in all-cause mortality (pOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.22; 7 trials; 422 participants) or in thrombotic events (pOR 1.58, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17; 7 trials, 422 participants) is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low.\nDDAVP versus tranexamic acid\nCompared with tranexamic acid, DDAVP may increase the volume of blood transfused (MD 0.6 units, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.11 units; 1 trial, 40 participants) and total blood loss (MD 142.81 mL, 95% CI 79.78 mL to 205.84 mL; 2 trials, 115 participants) (both low-quality evidence).\nWhether DDAVP increases or decreases the total number of participants transfused with blood is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.64; 3 trials, 135 participants).\nNo trial reported all-cause mortality.\nWhether DDAVP leads to a difference in thrombotic events is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (pOR 2.92, 95% CI 0.32 to 26.83; 2 trials, 115 participants).\nDDAVP versus aprotinin\nCompared with aprotinin, DDAVP probably increases the total number of participants transfused with blood (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.02; 1 trial, 99 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).\nNo trials reported volume of blood transfused or total blood loss and the single trial that included mortality as an outcome reported no deaths.\nWhether DDAVP leads to a difference in thrombotic events is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (pOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.89; 2 trials, 152 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost of the evidence derived by comparing DDAVP versus placebo was obtained in cardiac surgery, where DDAVP was administered after cardiopulmonary bypass. In adults undergoing cardiac surgery, the reduction in volume of red cells transfused and total blood loss was small and was unlikely to be clinically important. It is less clear whether DDAVP may be of benefit for children and for those undergoing non-cardiac surgery. A key area for researchers is examining the effects of DDAVP for people with platelet dysfunction. Few trials have compared DDAVP versus tranexamic acid or aprotinin; consequently, we are uncertain of the relative efficacy of these interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We rated the quality of evidence as very low to moderate for the outcomes above. We considered many of the trials to be at high risk of bias and noted inconsistency and imprecision in their results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3388 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchiectasis is characterised by excessive sputum production, chronic cough, and acute exacerbations and is associated with symptoms of dyspnoea and fatigue, which reduce exercise tolerance and impair quality of life. Exercise training in isolation or in conjunction with other interventions is beneficial for people with other respiratory diseases, but its effects in bronchiectasis have not been well established.\nObjectives\nTo determine effects of exercise training compared to usual care on exercise tolerance (primary outcome), quality of life (primary outcome), incidence of acute exacerbation and hospitalisation, respiratory and mental health symptoms, physical function, mortality, and adverse events in people with stable or acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis.\nSearch methods\nWe identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization trials portal, from their inception to October 2020. We reviewed respiratory conference abstracts and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials in which exercise training of at least four weeks' duration (or eight sessions) was compared to usual care for people with stable bronchiectasis or experiencing an acute exacerbation. Co-interventions with exercise training including education, respiratory muscle training, and airway clearance therapy were permitted if also applied as part of usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, extracted outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for missing data. We calculated mean differences (MDs) using a random-effects model. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included six studies, two of which were published as abstracts, with a total of 275 participants. Five studies were undertaken with people with clinically stable bronchiectasis, and one pilot study was undertaken post acute exacerbation. All studies included co-interventions such as instructions for airway clearance therapy and/or breathing strategies, provision of an educational booklet, and delivery of educational sessions. The duration of training ranged from six to eight weeks, with a mix of supervised and unsupervised sessions conducted in the outpatient or home setting. No studies of children were included in the review; however we identified two studies as currently ongoing. No data were available regarding physical activity levels or adverse events.\nFor people with stable bronchiectasis, evidence suggests that exercise training compared to usual care improves functional exercise tolerance as measured by the incremental shuttle walk distance, with a mean difference (MD) between groups of 87 metres (95% confidence interval (CI) 43 to 132 metres; 4 studies, 161 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence also suggests that exercise training improves six-minute walk distance (6MWD) (MD between groups of 42 metres, 95% CI 22 to 62; 1 study, 76 participants; low-certainty evidence). The magnitude of these observed mean changes appears clinically relevant as they exceed minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds for people with chronic lung disease. Evidence suggests that quality of life improves following exercise training according to St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -9.62 points, 95% CI -15.67 to -3.56 points; 3 studies, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence), which exceeds the MCID of 4 points for this outcome. A reduction in dyspnoea (MD 1.0 points, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.53; 1 study, 76 participants) and fatigue (MD 1.51 points, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.22 points; 1 study, 76 participants) was observed following exercise training according to these domains of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire. However, there was no change in cough-related quality of life as measured by the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) (MD -0.09 points, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.80 points; 2 studies, 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), nor in anxiety or depression. Two studies reported longer-term outcomes up to 12 months after intervention completion; however exercise training did not appear to improve exercise capacity or quality of life more than usual care. Exercise training reduced the number of acute exacerbations of bronchiectasis over 12 months in people with stable bronchiectasis (odds ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.81; 1 study, 55 participants).\nAfter an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis, data from a single study (N = 27) suggest that exercise training compared to usual care confers little to no effect on exercise capacity (MD 11 metres, 95% CI -27 to 49 metres; low-certainty evidence), SGRQ total score (MD 6.34 points, 95%CI -17.08 to 29.76 points), or LCQ score (MD -0.08 points, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.78 points; low-certainty evidence) and does not reduce the time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.22).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review provides low-certainty evidence suggesting improvement in functional exercise capacity and quality of life immediately following exercise training in people with stable bronchiectasis; however the effects of exercise training on cough-related quality of life and psychological symptoms appear to be minimal. Due to inadequate reporting of methods, small study numbers, and variation between study findings, evidence is of very low to moderate certainty. Limited evidence is available to show longer-term effects of exercise training on these outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The certainty of evidence was very low to moderate due to uncertainty regarding the true size of observed benefits, poorly conducted studies, and an overall lack of sufficient data. More studies with larger participant numbers are required to determine the long-term effects of exercise training, irrespective of clinical status."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3389 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPegylated interferon (peginterferon) plus ribavirin is the recommended treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C, but systematic assessment of the effect of this treatment compared with interferon plus ribavirin is needed.\nObjectives\nTo systematically evaluate the benefits and harms of peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for patients with chronic hepatitis C.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index-Expanded, and LILACS. We also searched conference abstracts, journals, and grey literature. The last searches were conducted in September 2013.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials comparing peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin with or without co-intervention(s) (e.g., other antiviral drugs) for chronic hepatitis C. Quasi-randomised and observational studies retrieved through the searches for randomised clinical trials were also considered for reports of harms. Our primary outcomes were liver-related morbidity, all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, other adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcome was sustained virological response in serum, that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitive tests six months after the end of treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently used a standardised data collection form. We meta-analysed data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) (for liver-related morbidity or all-cause mortality) or the risk ratio (RR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. We used domains of the trials to assess the risk of systematic errors (bias) and trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors (play of chance).\nFor each outcome, we calculated the RR with 95% CI based on intention-to-treat analysis. Effects of interventions on outcomes were assessed according to GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 27 randomised trials with 5938 participants. All trials had high risk of bias. We considered that the risk of bias did not impact on the quality of evidence for liver-related mortality and adverse event outcomes, but it did for virological response. All trials compared peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for participants with chronic hepatitis C. Three trials administered co-interventions (amantadine hydrochloride 200 mg daily to both intervention groups), and 24 trials were conducted without co-interventions. The effect observed between the two intervention groups regarding liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality (5/907 (0.55%) versus 4/882 (0.45%) was imprecise: OR 1.14 ( 95% CI 0.38 to 3.42; five trials; low quality of evidence), as was the risk of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (332/2692 (12.3%) versus 409/2176 (18.8%); RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 15 trials; low quality of evidence) or regarding adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (332/2692 (12.3%) versus 409/2176 (18.8%); RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.12; 17 trials; low quality of evidence). However, peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin significantly increased the risk of neutropenia (332/2202 (15.1%) versus 117/1653 (7.1%); RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.61; 13 trials), thrombocytopenia (65/1113 (5.8%) versus 23/1082 (2.1%); RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.11; 10 trials), arthralgia (517/1740 (29.7%) versus 282/1194 (23.6%); RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; four trials), injection site reaction (627/1168 (53.7%) versus 186/649 (28.7%); RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.93; four trials), and nausea (606/1784 (34.0%) versus 354/1239 (28.6%); RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.26; four trials). The most frequent adverse event was fatigue, which occurred in 57% of participants (2024/3608). No significant difference was noted between peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin in terms of fatigue (1177/2062 (57.1%) versus 847/1546 (54.8%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07; 12 trials). No significant differences were reported between the two treatment groups regarding anaemia, headache, rigours, myalgia, pyrexia, weight loss, asthenia, depression, insomnia, irritability, alopecia, pruritus, skin rash, thyroid malfunction, decreased appetite, or diarrhoea. We were unable to identify any data on quality of life. Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin seemed to significantly increase the number of participants achieving sustained virological response (1673/3300 participants (50.7%) versus 1081/2804 patients (36.7%); RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.56; I2 = 64%; 27 trials; very low quality of evidence). However, the risk of bias in the 13/27 (48.1%) trials reporting on this outcome was high and was considered only 'lower' in the remainder. Because the conventional meta-analysis did not reach its required information size (n = 14,486 participants), we used trial sequential analysis to control for risks of random errors. Again, in this analysis, the estimated effect was statistically significant in favour of peginterferon. Subgroup analyses according to risk of bias, viral genotype, baseline viral load, past treatment history, and type of intervention yielded similarly significant results favouring peginterferon over interferon on the outcome of sustained virological response.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPeginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin seems to significantly increase the proportion of patients with sustained virological response, as well as the risk of certain adverse events. However, we have insufficient evidence to recommend or reject peginterferon plus ribavirin for liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality compared with interferon plus ribavirin. The clinical consequences of achieved sustained virological response are unknown, as sustained virological response is still an unvalidated surrogate outcome. We found no evidence of the potential benefits on quality of life in patients with achieved sustained virological response. Further high-quality research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of patient-relevant outcomes and is likely to change our estimates.There is very low quality evidence that peginterferon plus ribavirin increases the proportion of patients with sustained virological response in comparison with interferon plus ribavirin. There is evidence that it also increases the risk of certain adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Adverse effects\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Peginterferon plus ribavirin compared with interferon plus ribavirin significantly increased the risk of adverse events such as neutropenia (lack of white blood cells in the blood), thrombocytopenia (lack of blood platelets in the blood), arthralgia (joint pain), injection site reaction, and nausea, but adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation remained comparable for both treatments (12.3% versus 18.7%). Data about the influence of treatment on quality of life are insufficient."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3390 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nZinc deficiency is prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, and is considered a significant risk factor for morbidity, mortality, and linear growth failure. The effectiveness of preventive zinc supplementation in reducing prevalence of zinc deficiency needs to be assessed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of zinc supplementation for preventing mortality and morbidity, and for promoting growth, in children aged 6 months to 12 years.\nSearch methods\nA previous version of this review was published in 2014. In this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and one trials register up to February 2022, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive zinc supplementation in children aged 6 months to 12 years compared with no intervention, a placebo, or a waiting list control. We excluded hospitalized children and children with chronic diseases or conditions. We excluded food fortification or intake, sprinkles, and therapeutic interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted study authors for missing information and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcomes of this review were all-cause mortality; and cause-specific mortality, due to all-cause diarrhea, lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI, including pneumonia), and malaria. We also collected information on a number of secondary outcomes, such as those related to diarrhea and LRTI morbidity, growth outcomes and serum levels of micronutrients, and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 16 new studies in this review, resulting in a total of 96 RCTs with 219,584 eligible participants. The included studies were conducted in 34 countries; 87 of them in low- or middle-income countries. Most of the children included in this review were under five years of age. The intervention was delivered most commonly in the form of syrup as zinc sulfate, and the most common dose was between 10 mg and 15 mg daily. The median duration of follow-up was 26 weeks. We did not consider that the evidence for the key analyses of morbidity and mortality outcomes was affected by risk of bias.\nHigh-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in all-cause mortality with preventive zinc supplementation compared to no zinc (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.03; 16 studies, 17 comparisons, 143,474 participants).\nModerate-certainty evidence showed that preventive zinc supplementation compared to no zinc likely results in little to no difference in mortality due to all-cause diarrhea (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.31; 4 studies, 132,321 participants); but probably reduces mortality due to LRTI (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; 3 studies, 132,063 participants) and mortality due to malaria (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.06; 2 studies, 42,818 participants); however, the confidence intervals around the summary estimates for these outcomes were wide, and we could not rule out a possibility of increased risk of mortality.\nPreventive zinc supplementation likely reduces the incidence of all-cause diarrhea (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.93; 39 studies, 19,468 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but results in little to no difference in morbidity due to LRTI (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.08; 19 studies, 10,555 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to no zinc.\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence that preventive zinc supplementation likely leads to a slight increase in height (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.14; 74 studies, 20,720 participants).\nZinc supplementation was associated with an increase in the number of participants with at least one vomiting episode (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.46; 5 studies, 35,192 participants; high-certainty evidence). We report a number of other outcomes, including the effect of zinc supplementation on weight and serum markers such as zinc, hemoglobin, iron, copper, etc. We also performed a number of subgroup analyses and there was a consistent finding for a number of outcomes that co-supplementation of zinc with iron decreased the beneficial effect of zinc.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEven though we included 16 new studies in this update, the overall conclusions of the review remain unchanged. Zinc supplementation might help prevent episodes of diarrhea and improve growth slightly, particularly in children aged 6 months to 12 years of age. The benefits of preventive zinc supplementation may outweigh the harms in regions where the risk of zinc deficiency is relatively high.\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 randomly assigned children aged 6 months to 12 years to receive zinc supplementation or no zinc.\nWe compared and summarized the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3391 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTracheostomy formation is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in critically ill intensive care participants requiring long-term mechanical ventilation. Both surgical tracheostomies (STs) and percutaneous tracheostomies (PTs) are used in current surgical practice; but until now, the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in critically ill participants remains unclear.\nObjectives\nWe evaluated the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous techniques compared to surgical techniques commonly used for elective tracheostomy in critically ill participants (adults and children) to assess whether there was a difference in complication rates between the procedures. We also assessed whether the effect varied between different groups of participants or settings (intensive care unit (ICU), operating room), different levels of operator experience, different percutaneous techniques, or whether the percutaneous techniques were carried out with or without bronchoscopic guidance.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to 28 May 2015. We also searched reference lists of articles, 'grey literature', and dissertations. We handsearched intensive care and anaesthesia journals, abstracts, and proceedings of scientific meetings. We attempted to identify unpublished or ongoing studies by contacting manufacturers and experts in the field, and searching in trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) comparing percutaneous techniques (experimental intervention) with surgical techniques (control intervention) used for elective tracheostomy in critically ill participants (adults and children).\nData collection and analysis\nThree authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data on methodological quality, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcomes of interest using a standardized form. We then entered data into Review Manager 5, with a double-entry procedure.\nMain results\nOf 785 identified citations, 20 trials from 1990 to 2011 enrolling 1652 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We judged most of the trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias across the six domains, and we judged four studies to have elements of high risk of bias; we did not classify any studies at overall low risk of bias. The quality of evidence was low for five of the seven outcomes (very low N = 1, moderate N = 1) and there was heterogeneity among the studies. There was a variety of adult participants and the procedures were performed by a wide range of differently experienced operators in different situations.\nThere was no evidence of a difference in the rate of the primary outcomes: mortality directly related to the procedure (Peto odds ratio (POR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 2.60, I² = 44%, P = 0.42, 4 studies, 257 participants, low quality evidence); and serious, life-threatening adverse events - intraoperatively: risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.53, I² = 27%, P = 0.78, 12 studies, 1211 participants, low quality evidence,and direct postoperatively: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25, I² = 24%, P = 0.24, 10 studies, 984 participants, low quality evidence.\nPTs significantly reduce the rate of the secondary outcome, wound infection/stomatitis by 76% (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.37, I² = 0%, P < 0.00001, 12 studies, 936 participants, moderate quality evidence) and the rate of unfavourable scarring by 75% (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91, I² = 86%, P = 0.04, 6 studies, 789 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of the secondary outcomes, major bleeding (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.09, I² = 47%, P = 0.12, 10 studies, 984 participants, very low quality evidence) and tracheostomy tube occlusion/obstruction, accidental decannulation, difficult tube change (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.82, I² = 22%, P = 0.42, 6 studies, 538 participants, low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared to STs, PTs significantly reduce the rate of wound infection/stomatitis (moderate quality evidence) and the rate of unfavourable scarring (low quality evidence due to imprecision and heterogeneity). In terms of mortality and the rate of serious adverse events, there was low quality evidence that non-significant positive effects exist for PTs. In terms of the rate of major bleeding, there was very low quality evidence that non-significant positive effects exist for PTs.\nHowever, because several groups of participants were excluded from the included studies, the number of participants in the included studies was limited, long-term outcomes were not evaluated, and data on participant-relevant outcomes were either sparse or not available for each study, the results of this meta-analysis are limited and cannot be applied to all critically ill adults.\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 different techniques used for planned opening of the trachea in adult participants hospitalized in an intensive care unit (ICU)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3392 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDifferent forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.\nWe synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nWe included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses.\nOverall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome.\nWe identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.\nThis abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nConfirmed symptomatic COVID-19\nHigh-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants).\nModerate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants).\nThere is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants).\nSevere or critical COVID-19\nHigh-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants).\nModerate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants).\nTwo trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled.\nSerious adverse events (SAEs)\nmRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants.\nEvidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants).\nFor the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).\nImplications for practice\nDue to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern.\nImplications for research\nFuture research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.\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 November 2021. This is a living systematic review. Our results are available and updated bi-weekly on the COVID-NMA platform at covid-nma.com."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3393 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAsparaginase has played a crucial role in the improvement of survival in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), which is the commonest cancer among children. Survival rates have steadily increased over decades since the introduction of asparaginase to ALL therapy, and overall survival rates reach 90% with the best contemporary protocols. Currently, polyethylene glycolated native Escherichia coli-derived L-asparaginase (PEG-asparaginase) is the preferred first-line asparaginase preparation. Besides its clinical benefits, PEG-asparaginase is well known for severe toxicities. Agreement on the optimal dose, treatment duration, and frequency of administration has never been reached among clinicians.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nTo assess the effect of the number of PEG-asparaginase doses on survival and relapse in children and adolescents with ALL.\nSecondary objectives\nTo assess the association between the number of doses of PEG-asparaginase and asparaginase-associated toxicities (e.g. hypersensitivity, thromboembolism, pancreatitis and osteonecrosis).\nTo undertake a network meta-analysis at dose-level in order to generate rankings of the number of doses of PEG-asparaginase used in the treatment for ALL, according to their benefits (survival and relapse) and harms (toxicity).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science databases and three trials registers in November 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different PEG-asparaginase treatment regimens in children and adolescents (< 18 years of age) with first-line ALL treated with multiagent chemotherapy including PEG-asparaginase.\nData collection and analysis\nUsing a standardised data collection form, two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each outcome using a standardised tool (RoB 2.0) and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included overall survival, event-free survival and leukaemic relapse. Secondary outcomes included asparaginase-associated toxicities (hypersensitivity, thromboembolism, pancreatitis, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome and osteonecrosis as well as overall asparaginase-associated toxicity).\nWe conducted the review and performed the analyses in accordance with the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs in the review, and identified an additional four ongoing studies. We judged outcomes of two RCTs to be at low risk of bias in all the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) domains. We rated the remaining study as having some concerns regarding bias. Due to concerns about imprecision, we rated all outcomes as having low- to moderate-certainty evidence.\nOne study compared intermittent PEG-asparaginase treatment (eight doses of PEG-asparaginase, 1000 IU/m2, intramuscular (IM) administration) versus continuous PEG-asparaginase treatment (15 doses of PEG-asparaginase, 1000 IU/m2, IM) in 625 participants with non-high risk ALL aged 1.0 to 17.9 years. We found that treatment with eight doses probably results in little to no difference in event-free survival compared to treatment with 15 doses (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.06; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to treatment with 15 doses, treatment with eight doses may result in either no difference or a slight reduction in hypersensitivity (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.93; low-certainty evidence), thromboembolism (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.36; low-certainty evidence) or osteonecrosis (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.32; low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found that treatment with eight doses probably reduces pancreatitis (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence) and asparaginase-associated toxicity (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.78; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to treatment with 15 doses.\nOne study compared low-risk standard treatment with additional PEG-asparaginase (six doses, 2500 IU/m2, IM) versus low-risk standard treatment (two doses, 2500 IU/m2, IM) in 1857 participants aged one to nine years old with standard low-risk ALL. We found that, compared to treatment with two doses, treatment with six doses probably results in little to no difference in overall survival (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; moderate-certainty evidence) and event-free survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.04; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in either no difference or a slight increase in osteonecrosis (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.00; low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found that treatment with six doses probably increases hypersensitivity (RR 12.05, 95% CI 5.27 to 27.58; moderate-certainty evidence), pancreatitis (RR 4.84, 95% CI 2.15 to 10.85; moderate-certainty evidence) and asparaginase-associated toxicity (RR 4.49, 95% CI 3.05 to 6.59; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to treatment with two doses.\nOne trial compared calaspargase (11 doses, 2500 IU/m2, intravenous (IV)) versus PEG-asparaginase (16 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) in 239 participants aged one to 21 years with standard- and high-risk ALL and lymphoblastic lymphoma. We found that treatment with 11 doses of calaspargase probably results in little to no difference in event-free survival compared to treatment with 16 doses of PEG-asparaginase (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.16; moderate-certainty evidence). However, treatment with 11 doses of calaspargase probably reduces leukaemic relapse compared to treatment with 16 doses of PEG-asparaginase (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.83; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found that treatment with 11 doses of calaspargase results in either no difference or a slight reduction in hypersensitivity (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.13; low-certainty evidence), pancreatitis (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.52; low-certainty evidence), thromboembolism (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.42; low-certainty evidence), osteonecrosis (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.56; low-certainty evidence) and asparaginase-associated toxicity (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; low-certainty evidence) compared to treatment with 16 doses of PEG-asparaginase.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe were not able to conduct a network meta-analysis, and could not draw clear conclusions because it was not possible to rank the interventions. Overall, we found that different numbers of doses of PEG-asparaginase probably result in little to no difference in event-free survival across all studies. In two studies, we found that a higher number of PEG-asparaginase doses probably increases pancreatitis and asparaginase-associated toxicities.\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 all currently available trials in childhood ALL that compared different PEG-asparaginase treatments. We looked at how the number of PEG-asparaginase doses affected survival and the risk of toxicities associated with asparaginase treatment. We included three trials in the review, which compared three different PEG-asparaginase treatments. As the trials had many differences, it was not possible to combine them into an overall analysis, and we have summarised the trials separately."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3394 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEndothelin, a powerful vasoconstrictor, is one of the mediators in the causation of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN). Theoretically, endothelin receptor antagonists (ETRA) have the potential to improve the outcomes of infants with PPHN.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of ETRA in the treatment of PPHN in full-term, post-term and late preterm infants.\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of selective ETRAs (which block only the ETA receptors) and non-selective ETRAs (which block both ETA and ETB receptors) separately.\nSearch methods\nCENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched until December 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently searched the literature, selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. A fixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nTwo randomised controlled trials of ETRA met the inclusion criteria. Both studies utilized oral Bosentan. The first study was done in a setting where inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) therapy was not available. Forty-seven infants (≥ 34 weeks' gestation) were randomised to receive either Bosentan or placebo. The second study was a multicentre study where iNO therapy was the standard of care for PPHN. Twenty-one infants were randomised to receive either 'iNO plus Bosentan' or 'iNO plus placebo'.\nIn the first study, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death before hospital discharge between the Bosentan and placebo groups (1/23 vs 3/14; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.77; RD −0.17, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.06). A higher proportion of infants in the Bosentan group showed improvement in oxygenation index (OI) at the end of therapy (21/24 vs 3/15; RR 4.38, 95% CI 1.57 to 12.17; RD 0.68, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92; number needed to treat for a beneficial outcome (NNTB) 1.5). The duration of mechanical ventilation was lower in the Bosentan group (4.3 ± 0.9 vs 11.5 ± 0.6 days; MD −7.20, 95% CI −7.64 to −6.76). There was no significant difference in adverse neurological outcomes at six months (0/23 vs 4/14; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.20; RD −0.29, 95% CI −0.52 to -0.05). The study suffered from a high risk of attrition bias since 8/23 infants in the placebo group were excluded from various analyses. Since the protocol for the study could not be accessed, the study suffered from unclear risk of reporting bias.\nIn the second study, there was no significant difference in the incidence of treatment failure needing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) between the 'iNO plus Bosentan' vs 'iNO plus placebo' groups (1/13 vs 0/8; RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.09 to 42.35; RD 0.08, 95% CI −0.14 to 0.30). There was no significant difference in the median time to wean from iNO ('iNO plus Bosentan': 3.7 days (95% CI 1.17 to 6.95); 'iNO plus placebo': 2.9 days (95% CI 1.26 to 4.23); P = 0.34). There were no significant differences in the OI 0, 3, 5, 12, 24, 48 and 72 hours of treatment between the groups. There were no significant differences in the time to complete weaning from mechanical ventilation (median 10.8 days (CI 3.21 to 12.21) versus 8.6 days (CI 3.71 to 9.66); P = 0.24). The study had unequal distribution to the Bosentan group (N = 13) and the placebo group (N = 8). The methods used for generating random sequence numbers and allocation concealment were unclear, resulting in unclear risk of selection bias.\nBoth studies reported that Bosentan was well tolerated and no major adverse effects were noted. Data from the two studies was not pooled given the heterogenous nature of the clinical settings and the modalities used for the treatment of PPHN.\nOverall, the quality of evidence was considered low, given the small sample size of the included studies, the numerical imbalance between the groups due to randomisation and attrition, and unclear risk of bias on some of the important domains.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is inadequate evidence to support the use of ETRAs either as stand-alone therapy or as adjuvant to inhaled nitric oxide in PPHN. Adequately powered RCTs are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Some newborn babies develop abnormally high blood pressure in the arteries of the lung. This condition is called persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN). Babies with PPHN present with breathing difficulties and low oxygen levels.Traditionally such babies are managed with respirators and administration of a special gas called nitric oxide. In many cases, babies do not improve in spite of these measures. A new class of drugs called endothelin receptor antagonists are being tested for PPHN."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3395 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mothers and their infants in the short and long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not screening all pregnant women for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate setting for screening. This review updates a Cochrane Review, first published in 2010, and subsequently updated in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14 June 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings, compared with the absence of screening, or compared with other protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening. We planned to include trials published as abstracts only and cluster-randomised trials, but we did not identify any. Cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through consulting a third reviewer.\nMain results\nWe included two trials that randomised 4523 women and their infants. Both trials were conducted in Ireland. One trial (which quasi-randomised 3742 women, and analysed 3152 women) compared universal screening versus risk factor-based screening, and one trial (which randomised 781 women, and analysed 690 women) compared primary care screening versus secondary care screening. We were not able to perform meta-analyses due to the different interventions and comparisons assessed.\nOverall, there was moderate to high risk of bias due to one trial being quasi-randomised, inadequate blinding, and incomplete outcome data in both trials. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of the evidence for selected outcomes for the mother and her child. Evidence was downgraded for study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates.\nUniversal screening versus risk-factor screening (one trial)\nMother\nMore women were diagnosed with GDM in the universal screening group than in the risk-factor screening group (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.04; participants = 3152; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported under this comparison for other maternal outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean birth, perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, and type 2 diabetes.\nChild\nNeonatal outcomes: large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite, hypoglycaemia; and childhood/adulthood outcomes: adiposity, type 2 diabetes, and neurosensory disability, were not reported under this comparison.\nPrimary care screening versus secondary care screening (one trial)\nMother\nThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.66; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.59; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), pre-eclampsia (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 690;low-quality evidence), or caesarean section birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; participants = 690; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, or type 2 diabetes.\nChild\nThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for large-for-gestational age (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.96; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), neonatal complications: composite outcome, including: hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress, need for phototherapy, birth trauma, shoulder dystocia, five minute Apgar less than seven at one or five minutes, prematurity (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.71; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.38; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There was one perinatal death in the primary care screening group and two in the secondary care screening group (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.10 to 12.12; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There were no data for neurosensory disability, or childhood/adulthood adiposity or type 2 diabetes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are insufficient randomised controlled trial data evaluating the effects of screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests universal screening compared with risk factor-based screening leads to more women being diagnosed with GDM. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between primary care and secondary care screening, for outcomes: GDM, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, caesarean birth, large-for-gestational age, neonatal complications composite, and hypoglycaemia.\nFurther, high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the value of screening for GDM, which may compare different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening (based on different risk profiles and settings), with the absence of screening, or with other protocols, guidelines or programmes. There is a need for future trials to be sufficiently powered to detect important differences in short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, such as those important outcomes pre-specified in this review. As only a proportion of women will be diagnosed with GDM in these trials, large sample sizes may be required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "GDM is a form of diabetes that can develop during pregnancy, and can increase the risk of complications for mothers and their babies. Women with GDM are more likely to develop pre-eclampsia (high blood pressure and protein in the urine) and require a caesarean section. For babies, potential problems include being large for gestational age (growing larger than they normally would), or having hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar) after birth. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, mothers and their babies are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future.\nTreating GDM can improve health outcomes. Women often do not know they have GDM. Screening to identify and treat GDM in pregnant women may therefore improve outcomes. The two main approaches are 'universal' where all women undergo screening; and 'selective' or 'risk factor'-based where only those women 'at risk' are screened. The risk factors for GDM include certain ethnicities, being older, overweight or obese, having had a previous large baby, or a family history of GDM or type 2 diabetes. It possible to screen for GDM in different settings, such as in the community (e.g. a general practice clinic) or in hospital. The ideal screening method for GDM that leads to the best health outcomes for mothers and their babies remains unclear."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3396 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. A range of treatments with antimicrobial properties, including impregnated dressings, are widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers. A clear and current overview is required to facilitate decision making regarding use of antiseptic or antibiotic therapies in the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is one of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of antiseptics and antibiotics in different types of wounds. It also forms part of a suite of reviews investigating the use of different types of dressings and topical treatments in the treatment of pressure ulcers.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics, and topical antiseptics on the healing of infected and uninfected pressure ulcers being treated in any clinical setting.\nSearch methods\nIn October 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials which enrolled adults with pressure ulcers of stage II or above were included in the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials (576 participants); 11 had two arms and one had three arms. All assessed topical agents, none looked at systemic antibiotics. The included trials assessed the following antimicrobial agents: povidone iodine, cadexomer iodine, gentian violet, lysozyme, silver dressings, honey, pine resin, polyhexanide, silver sulfadiazine, and nitrofurazone with ethoxy-diaminoacridine. Comparators included a range of other dressings and ointments without antimicrobial properties and alternative antimicrobials. Each comparison had only one trial, participant numbers were low and follow-up times short. The evidence varied from moderate to very low quality.\nSix trials reported the primary outcome of wound healing. All except one compared an antiseptic with a non-antimicrobial comparator. There was some moderate and low quality evidence that fewer ulcers may heal in the short term when treated with povidone iodine compared with non-antimicrobial alternatives (protease-modulating dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98) and hydrogel (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97)); and no clear difference between povidone iodine and a third non-antimicrobial treatment (hydrocolloid) (low quality evidence). Pine resin salve may heal more pressure ulcers than hydrocolloid (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.05) (low quality evidence). There is no clear difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care, and between honey and a combined antiseptic and antibiotic treatment (very low quality evidence).\nSix trials reported adverse events (primary safety outcome). Four reported no adverse events; there was very low quality evidence from one showing no clear evidence of a difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care; in one trial it was not clear whether data were appropriately reported.\nThere was limited reporting of secondary outcomes. The five trials that reported change in wound size as a continuous outcome did not report any clear evidence favouring any particular antiseptic/anti-microbial treatments. For bacterial resistance, one trial found some evidence of more MRSA eradication in participants with ulcer treated with a polyhexanide dressing compared with a polyhexanide swab (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.13); patients in the dressing group also reported less pain (MD −2.03, 95% CI −2.66 to −1.40). There was no clear evidence of a difference between interventions in infection resolution in three other comparisons. Evidence for secondary outcomes varied from moderate to very low quality; where no GRADE assessment was possible we identified substantial limitations which an assessment would have taken into account.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe relative effects of systemic and topical antimicrobial treatments on pressure ulcers are not clear. Where differences in wound healing were found, these sometimes favoured the comparator treatment without antimicrobial properties. The trials are small, clinically heterogenous, generally of short duration, and at high or unclear risk of bias. The quality of the evidence ranges from moderate to very low; evidence on all comparisons was subject to some limitations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why use antiseptics and antibiotics to treat pressure ulcers?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Where pressure ulcers are infected, antibiotics or antiseptics are used to kill or slow the growth of the micro-organisms causing the infection and may prevent an infection from getting worse or spreading. This may also help the ulcer to heal. Where ulcers are not infected they usually still have populations of micro-organisms present. It is thought that they may heal better if these are reduced by antimicrobial agents. However, the relationship between infection and micro-organism populations in wounds and wound healing is not very clear."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3397 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary tuberculosis is usually diagnosed when symptomatic individuals seek care at healthcare facilities, and healthcare workers have a minimal role in promoting the health-seeking behaviour. However, some policy specialists believe the healthcare system could be more active in tuberculosis diagnosis to increase tuberculosis case detection.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies to increase tuberculosis case detection through improving access (geographical, financial, educational) to tuberculosis diagnosis at primary healthcare or community-level services.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases for relevant studies up to 19 December 2016: the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library, Issue 12, 2016; MEDLINE; Embase; Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index; BIOSIS Previews; and Scopus. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized and non-randomized controlled studies comparing any intervention that aims to improve access to a tuberculosis diagnosis, with no intervention or an alternative intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We compared interventions using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included nine cluster-randomized trials, one individual randomized trial, and seven non-randomized controlled studies. Nine studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), six in Asia (Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Nepal, and Pakistan), and two in South America (Brazil and Colombia); which are all high tuberculosis prevalence areas.\nTuberculosis outreach screening, using house-to-house visits, sometimes combined with printed information about going to clinic, may increase tuberculosis case detection (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.79; 4 trials, 6,458,591 participants in 297 clusters, low-certainty evidence); and probably increases case detection in areas with tuberculosis prevalence of 5% or more (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.09; 3 trials, 155,918 participants, moderate-certainty evidence; prespecified stratified analysis). These interventions may lower the early default (prior to starting treatment) or default during treatment (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96; 3 trials, 849 participants, low-certainty evidence). However, this intervention may have may have little or no effect on treatment success (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.15; 3 trials, 849 participants, low-certainty evidence), and we do not know if there is an effect on treatment failure or mortality. One study investigated long-term prevalence in the community, but with no clear effect due to imprecision and differences in care between the two groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00; 1 trial, 556,836 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nFour studies examined health promotion activities to encourage people to attend for screening, including mass media strategies and more locally organized activities. There was some increase, but this could have been related to temporal trends, with no corresponding increase in case notifications, and no evidence of an effect on long-term tuberculosis prevalence. Two studies examined the effects of two to six nurse practitioner educational sessions in tuberculosis diagnosis, with no clear effect on tuberculosis cases detected. One trial compared mobile clinics every five days with house-to-house screening every six months, and showed an increase in tuberculosis cases.\nThere was also insufficient evidence to determine if sustained improvements in case detection impact on long-term tuberculosis prevalence; this was evaluated in one study, which indicated little or no effect after four years of either contact tracing, extensive health promotion activities, or both (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.30; 1 study, 405,788 participants in 12 clusters, very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence demonstrates that when used in appropriate settings, active case-finding approaches may result in increase in tuberculosis case detection in the short term. The effect of active case finding on treatment outcome needs to be further evaluated in sufficiently powered studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why does tuberculosis go undiagnosed and how might programmes improve this?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Tuberculosis is a chronic infectious disease that affects over 10 million people worldwide, with an estimated four million tuberculosis patients remaining undiagnosed each year. Interventions such as outreach tuberculosis screening with or without health promotion that actively screen for tuberculosis among individuals presenting with symptoms of tuberculosis, may increase detection of microbiologically confirmed tuberculosis cases. These interventions may improve treatment outcomes by increasing the number of tuberculosis patients who are cured and complete treatment. However, we do not know if these interventions reduce either tuberculosis treatment failure, or tuberculosis-associated death or long-term tuberculosis burden in moderate- and high-tuberculosis settings."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3398 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nContinuous erythropoiesis receptor activator (CERA) is a newer, longer acting ESA which might be preferred to other ESAs (epoetin or darbepoetin) based on its lower frequency of administration. Different dosing requirements and molecular characteristics of CERA compared with other ESAs may lead to different health outcomes (mortality, cardiovascular events, quality of life) in people with anaemia and chronic kidney disease (CKD).\nObjectives\nTo assess benefits and harms of CERA compared with other epoetins (darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa or beta) or placebo/no treatment or CERA with differing strategy of administration for anaemia in individuals with CKD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 13 June 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least three months' duration, comparing CERA with a different ESA (darbepoetin alfa or epoetin alfa or beta) or placebo or standard care or versus CERA with different strategies for administration in people with any stage of CKD.\nData collection and analysis\nData were extracted by two independent investigators. We summarised patient-centred outcomes (all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, red cell blood transfusion, iron therapy, cancer, hypertension, seizures, dialysis vascular access thrombosis, drug injection-related events, hyperkalaemia and health-related quality of life and haemoglobin levels) using random effects meta-analysis. Treatment estimates were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences or standardized mean difference with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 27 studies involving 5410 adults with CKD. Seven studies (1273 participants) involved people not requiring dialysis, 19 studies (4209 participants) involved people treated with dialysis and one study (71 participants) evaluated treatment in recipients of a kidney transplant. Treatment was given for 24 weeks on average. No data were available for children with CKD. Studies were generally at high or unclear risk of bias from allocation concealment and blinding of outcomes. Only two studies masked participants and investigators to treatment allocation. One study compared CERA with placebo, nine studies CERA with epoetin alfa or beta, nine studies CERA with darbepoetin alfa, and two studies compared CERA with epoetin alfa or beta and darbepoetin alfa. Three studies assessed the effects of differing frequencies of CERA administration and five assessed differing CERA doses.\nThere was low certainty evidence that CERA had little or no effects on mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.57; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.65), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 5.09, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.23; RR 5.56, 95% CI 0.99 to 31.30), hypertension (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.28), need for blood transfusion (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.46; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.61), or additional iron therapy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03) compared to epoetin alfa/beta or darbepoetin alfa respectively. There was insufficient evidence to compare the effect of CERA to placebo on clinical outcomes. Only one low quality study reported that CERA compared to placebo might lead to little or no difference in the risk of major cardiovascular events (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.31 to 28.18) and hypertension ((RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.52). There was low certainty evidence that different doses (higher versus lower) or frequency (twice versus once monthly) of CERA administration had little or no different effect on all-cause mortality (RR 3.95, 95% CI 0.17 to 91.61; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.66), hypertension (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.52; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.21), and blood cell transfusions (RR 4.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 19.53; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.62). No studies reported comparative treatment effects of different ESAs on health-related quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low certainty evidence that CERA has little or no effects on patient-centred outcomes compared with placebo, epoetin alfa or beta or darbepoetin alfa for adults with CKD. The effects of CERA among children who have CKD have not studied in RCTs.\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": "Several treatments are available to treat anaemia in people who have kidney disease. These treatments boost the body's ability to produce red blood cells that take oxygen from the lungs and carry oxygen around the body. The kidney normally releases this hormone that prevents anaemia, but when the kidney function is low this hormone is insufficient to maintain an optimal level of red blood cells.\nSeveral synthetic versions of this hormone (called erythropoietin) are used as drugs that can be given into the skin or the directly blood stream and can completely correct anaemia from kidney disease. Several different treatment versions of erythropoietin are available in some parts of the world - these treatments generally differ by how often they need to be given to have an effect. The oldest versions of the drug (epoetin) need to be given several times per week, whereas newer drugs (darbepoetin and CERA) can be given much less often.\nUnfortunately, when high doses of anaemia treatments are used to achieve high haemoglobin levels, they can increase the risks of complications like a heart attack or stroke. Because of this risk, people are advised to use the dose of anaemia treatment that gives relief from the problems of anaemia (tiredness, breathlessness) but to avoid higher doses that may cause problems. However, it is not certain whether the different versions of the anaemia drugs have different risks of complications."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3399 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPsychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted affect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with first episode psychosis (FEP) and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.'\nSpecialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced a recent-onset psychosis. The purpose of SEI teams is to intensively treat people with psychosis early in the course of the illness with the goal of increasing the likelihood of recovery and reducing the need for longer-term mental health treatment. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and occupational, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. A previous Cochrane Review of SEI found preliminary evidence that SEI may be superior to standard community mental health care (described as 'treatment as usual (TAU)' in this review) but these recommendations were based on data from only one trial. This review updates the evidence for the use of SEI services.\nObjectives\nTo compare specialised early intervention (SEI) teams to treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.\nSearch methods\nOn 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting useable data as included studies.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs and one cluster-RCT with a total of 1145 participants. The mean age in the trials was between 23.1 years (RAISE) and 26.6 years (OPUS). The included participants were 405 females (35.4%) and 740 males (64.6%). All trials took place in community mental healthcare settings.\nTwo trials reported on recovery from psychosis at the end of treatment, with evidence that SEI team care may result in more participants in recovery than TAU at the end of treatment (73% versus 52%; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.97; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThree trials provided data on disengagement from services at the end of treatment, with fewer participants probably being disengaged from mental health services in SEI (8%) in comparison to TAU (15%) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere was low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer admissions to psychiatric hospital than TAU at the end of treatment (52% versus 57%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 4 studies, 1145 participants) and low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer psychiatric hospital days (MD -27.00 days, 95% CI -53.68 to -0.32; 1 study, 547 participants).\nTwo trials reported on general psychotic symptoms at the end of treatment, with no evidence of a difference between SEI and TAU, although this evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -4.58 to 3.75; 2 studies, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A different pattern was observed in assessment of general functioning with an end of trial difference that may favour SEI (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66; 2 studies, 467 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIt was uncertain whether the use of SEI resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality at end of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.20; 3 studies, 741 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere was low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in three of the four included trials; the remaining trial had unclear risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention, we considered all trials at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Two trials had low risk of bias and two trials had high risk of bias for blinding of outcomes assessments. Three trials had low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, while one trial had high risk of bias. Two trials had low risk of bias, one trial had high risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence that SEI may provide benefits to service users during treatment compared to TAU. These benefits probably include fewer disengagements from mental health services (moderate-certainty evidence), and may include small reductions in psychiatric hospitalisation (low-certainty evidence), and a small increase in global functioning (low-certainty evidence) and increased service satisfaction (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence regarding the effect of SEI over TAU after treatment has ended is uncertain. Further evidence investigating the longer-term outcomes of SEI is needed. Furthermore, all the eligible trials included in this review were conducted in high-income countries, and it is unclear whether these findings would translate to low- and middle-income countries, where both the intervention and the comparison conditions may be different.\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": "We wanted to find out whether specialist early intervention teams were more successful at treating recent-onset psychosis than outpatient or community mental health teams that do not specialise in treating it."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3400 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStatins are one of the most prescribed classes of drugs worldwide. Atorvastatin, the most prescribed statin, is currently used to treat conditions such as hypercholesterolaemia and dyslipidaemia. By reducing the level of cholesterol, which is the precursor of the steroidogenesis pathway, atorvastatin may cause a reduction in levels of testosterone and other androgens. Testosterone and other androgens play important roles in biological functions. A potential reduction in androgen levels, caused by atorvastatin might cause negative effects in most settings. In contrast, in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), reducing excessive levels of androgens with atorvastatin could be beneficial.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nTo quantify the magnitude of the effect of atorvastatin on total testosterone in both males and females, compared to placebo or no treatment.\nSecondary objectives\nTo quantify the magnitude of the effects of atorvastatin on free testosterone, sex hormone binding globin (SHBG), androstenedione, dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEAS) concentrations, free androgen index (FAI), and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in both males and females, compared to placebo or no treatment.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 9 November 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; ;two international trials registries, and the websites of the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Patent Office and the Pfizer pharmaceutical corporation. These searches had no language restrictions. We also contacted authors of relevant articles regarding further published and unpublished work.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs of daily atorvastatin for at least three weeks, compared with placebo or no treatment, and assessing change in testosterone levels in males or females.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the citations, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We used the mean difference (MD) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) to report the effect size of continuous outcomes,and the risk ratio (RR) to report effect sizes of the sole dichotomous outcome (WDAEs). We used a fixed-effect meta-analytic model to combine effect estimates across studies, and risk ratio to report effect size of the dichotomous outcomes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs involving 265 participants who completed the study and their data was reported. Participants in two of the studies were male with normal lipid profile or mild dyslipidaemia (N = 140); the mean age of participants was 68 years. Participants in four of the studies were female with PCOS (N = 125); the mean age of participants was 32 years. We found no significant difference in testosterone levels in males between atorvastatin and placebo, MD -0.20 nmol/L (95% CI -0.77 to 0.37). In females, atorvastatin may reduce total testosterone by -0.27 nmol/L (95% CI -0.50 to -0.04), FAI by -2.59 nmol/L (95% CI -3.62 to -1.57), androstenedione by -1.37 nmol/L (95% CI -2.26 to -0.49), and DHEAS by -0.63 μmol/l (95% CI -1.12 to -0.15). Furthermore, compared to placebo, atorvastatin increased SHBG concentrations in females by 3.11 nmol/L (95% CI 0.23 to 5.99). We identified no studies in healthy females (i.e. females with normal testosterone levels) or children (under age 18). Importantly, no study reported on free testosterone levels.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no significant difference between atorvastatin and placebo on the levels of total testosterone in males. In females with PCOS, atorvastatin lowered the total testosterone, FAI, androstenedione, and DHEAS. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low for both comparisons. More RCTs studying the effect of atorvastatin on testosterone are needed.\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": "The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes ranged from low to very low. Our statistical estimates for the effects of atorvastatin on testosterone and other androgens in males and females may be very different from the true effects. More studies are needed to answer this important question."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3401 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAntipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, yet they are associated with diverse and potentially dose-related side effects which can reduce quality of life. For this reason, the lowest possible doses of antipsychotics are generally recommended, but higher doses are often used in clinical practice. It is still unclear if and how antipsychotic doses could be reduced safely in order to minimise the adverse-effect burden without increasing the risk of relapse.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of reducing antipsychotic dose compared to continuing the current dose for people with schizophrenia.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a systematic search on 10 February 2021 at the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose reduction against continuation in people with schizophrenia or related disorders who were stabilised on their current antipsychotic treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently screened relevant records for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcomes were clinically important change in quality of life, rehospitalisations and dropouts due to adverse effects; key secondary outcomes were clinically important change in functioning, relapse, dropouts for any reason, and at least one adverse effect. We also examined scales measuring symptoms, quality of life, and functioning as well as a comprehensive list of specific adverse effects. We pooled outcomes at the endpoint preferably closest to one year. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 25 RCTs, of which 22 studies provided data with 2635 participants (average age 38.4 years old). The median study sample size was 60 participants (ranging from 18 to 466 participants) and length was 37 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks to 2 years). There were variations in the dose reduction strategies in terms of speed of reduction (i.e. gradual in about half of the studies (within 2 to 16 weeks) and abrupt in the other half), and in terms of degree of reduction (i.e. median planned reduction of 66% of the dose up to complete withdrawal in three studies). We assessed risk of bias across outcomes predominantly as some concerns or high risk.\nNo study reported data on the number of participants with a clinically important change in quality of life or functioning, and only eight studies reported continuous data on scales measuring quality of life or functioning. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation on scales measuring quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.17 to 0.15, 6 RCTs, n = 719, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and scales measuring functioning (SMD 0.03, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.17, 6 RCTs, n = 966, I2 = 0%, high certainty evidence).\nDose reduction in comparison to continuation may increase the risk of rehospitalisation based on data from eight studies with estimable effect sizes; however, the 95% CI does not exclude the possibility of no difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.81, 8 RCTs, n = 1413, I2 = 59% (moderate heterogeneity), very low certainty evidence). Similarly, dose reduction increased the risk of relapse based on data from 20 studies (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.06, 20 RCTs, n = 2481, I2 = 70% (substantial heterogeneity), low certainty evidence).\nMore participants in the dose reduction group in comparison to the continuation group left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.49, 6 RCTs with estimable effect sizes, n = 1079, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and for any reason (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1551, I2 = 48% (moderate heterogeneity), moderate certainty evidence).\nLastly, there was no difference between the dose reduction and continuation groups in the number of participants with at least one adverse effect based on data from four studies with estimable effect sizes (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12, 5 RCTs, n = 998 (4 RCTs, n = 980 with estimable effect sizes), I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review synthesised the latest evidence on the reduction of antipsychotic doses for stable individuals with schizophrenia. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation groups in quality of life, functioning, and number of participants with at least one adverse effect. However, there was a higher risk for relapse and dropouts, and potentially for rehospitalisations, with dose reduction. Of note, the majority of the trials focused on relapse prevention rather potential beneficial outcomes on quality of life, functioning, and adverse effects, and in some studies there was rapid and substantial reduction of doses. Further well-designed RCTs are therefore needed to provide more definitive answers.\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 examined reducing the dose of antipsychotics compared with keeping the same dose in people with schizophrenia.\nWe compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3402 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDementia is a progressive syndrome characterised by deterioration in memory, thinking and behaviour, and by impaired ability to perform daily activities. Two classes of drug - cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine) and memantine - are widely licensed for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, and rivastigmine is also licensed for Parkinson's disease dementia. These drugs are prescribed to alleviate symptoms and delay disease progression in these and sometimes in other forms of dementia. There are uncertainties about the benefits and adverse effects of these drugs in the long term and in severe dementia, about effects of withdrawal, and about the most appropriate time to discontinue treatment.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of withdrawal or continuation of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, in people with dementia on: cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional outcomes, rates of institutionalisation, adverse events, dropout from trials, mortality, quality of life and carer-related outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group’s Specialised Register up to 17 October 2020 using terms appropriate for the retrieval of studies of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine. The Specialised Register contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases, numerous trial registries and grey literature sources.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) which compared withdrawal of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, with continuation of the same drug or drugs.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed citations and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Where trials were sufficiently similar, we pooled data for outcomes in the short term (up to 2 months after randomisation), medium term (3-11 months) and long term (12 months or more). We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included six trials investigating cholinesterase inhibitor withdrawal, and one trial investigating withdrawal of either donepezil or memantine. No trials assessed withdrawal of memantine only. Drugs were withdrawn abruptly in five trials and stepwise in two trials. All participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, with severities ranging from mild to very severe, and were taking cholinesterase inhibitors without known adverse effects at baseline. The included trials randomised 759 participants to treatment groups relevant to this review. Study duration ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months. There were too few included studies to allow planned subgroup analyses. We considered some studies to be at unclear or high risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition or reporting bias.\nCompared to continuing cholinesterase inhibitors, discontinuing treatment may be associated with worse cognitive function in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.21; 4 studies; low certainty), but the effect in the medium term is very uncertain (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.07; 3 studies; very low certainty). In a sensitivity analysis omitting data from a study which only included participants who had shown a relatively poor prior response to donepezil, inconsistency was reduced and we found that cognitive function may be worse in the discontinuation group in the medium term (SMD -0.62; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.31). Data from one longer-term study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor is probably associated with worse cognitive function at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -2.09 Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) points, 95% CI -3.43 to -0.75; moderate certainty).\nDiscontinuation may make little or no difference to functional status in the short term (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.04; 2 studies; low certainty), and its effect in the medium term is uncertain (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.01; 2 studies; very low certainty). After 12 months, discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor probably results in greater functional impairment than continuing treatment (MD -3.38 Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) points, 95% CI -6.67 to -0.10; one study; moderate certainty). Discontinuation may be associated with a worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms over the short term and medium term, although we cannot exclude a minimal effect (SMD - 0.48, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.13; 2 studies; low certainty; and SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.08; 3 studies; low certainty, respectively). Data from one study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor may result in little to no change in neuropsychiatric status at 12 months (MD -0.87 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points; 95% CI -8.42 to 6.68; moderate certainty).\nWe found no clear evidence of an effect of discontinuation on dropout due to lack of medication efficacy or deterioration in overall medical condition (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.76; 4 studies; low certainty), on number of adverse events (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; 4 studies; low certainty) or serious adverse events (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.39; 4 studies; low certainty), and on mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.55; 5 studies; low certainty). Institutionalisation was reported in one trial, but it was not possible to extract data for the groups relevant to this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests that discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors may result in worse cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional status than continuing treatment, although this is supported by limited evidence, almost all of low or very low certainty. As all participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, our findings are not transferable to other dementia types. We were unable to determine whether the effects of discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors differed with baseline dementia severity. There is currently no evidence to guide decisions about discontinuing memantine. There is a need for further well-designed RCTs, across a range of dementia severities and settings. We are aware of two ongoing registered trials. In making decisions about discontinuing these drugs, clinicians should exercise caution, considering the evidence from existing trials along with other factors important to patients and their carers.\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": "Dementia is the term used to describe a group of illnesses, usually developing in late life, in which there is a deterioration in a person’s ability to think, remember, communicate and manage daily activities independently. It can be caused by several different brain diseases, but the most common form is dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. At the moment, there are no medical treatments which can prevent dementia or stop it from progressing, but there are two classes of drugs – the cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine) and memantine - which are approved and widely prescribed to treat some of the symptoms. They are used mainly for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease but also sometimes for other types of dementia. Most of the trials studying the effects of these drugs have been quite short (typically six months) even though dementia usually lasts for years. The drugs can have unwanted side effects in some people. There is uncertainty about their long-term effects and about how useful they are for severe dementia, with different countries making different recommendations. Therefore it can be difficult for doctors and patients to decide if and when these drugs should be stopped once they have been started."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3403 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDiabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision, and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO. In the previous update of this review, we found moderate-quality evidence that, at 12 months, aflibercept was slightly more effective than ranibizumab and bevacizumab for improving vision in people with DMO, although the difference may have been clinically insignificant (less than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), or five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, or one ETDRS line).\nObjectives\nThe objective of this updated review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in RCTs at longer follow-up (24 months).\nSearch methods\nWe searched various electronic databases on 8 July 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham, or no treatment in people with DMO.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods for pairwise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis (NMA) methods. We used the Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We used the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) web application to grade the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 23 studies (13 with industry funding) that enrolled 3513 people with DMO (median central retinal thickness (CRT) 460 microns, interquartile range (IQR) 424 to 482) and moderate vision loss (median best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.48 logMAR, IQR 0.42 to 0.55). One study that investigated ranibizumab versus sham and one study that mainly enrolled people with subclinical DMO and normal BCVA were not suitable for inclusion in the efficacy NMA.\nConsistent with the previous update of this review, we used ranibizumab as the reference drug for efficacy, and control (including laser, observation, and sham) as the reference for systemic safety.\nEight trials provided data on the primary outcome (change in BCVA at 24 months, in logMAR: lower is better). We found no evidence of a difference between the following interventions and ranibizumab alone: aflibercept (mean difference (MD) −0.05 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.12 to 0.02; moderate certainty); bevacizumab (MD -0.01 logMAR, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.10; low certainty), brolucizumab (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI −0.08 to 0.07; low certainty), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.10; low certainty), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.09; very low certainty).\nWe also analysed BCVA change at 12 months, finding moderate-certainty evidence of increased efficacy with brolucizumab (MD −0.07 logMAR, 95%CI −0.10 to −0.03 logMAR), faricimab (MD −0.08 logMAR, 95% CI −0.12 to −0.05), and aflibercept (MD −0.07 logMAR, 95 % CI −0.10 to −0.04) compared to ranibizumab alone, but the difference could be clinically insignificant.\nCompared to ranibizumab alone, NMA of six trials showed no evidence of a difference with aflibercept (moderate certainty), bevacizumab (low certainty), or ranibizumab with prompt (very low certainty) or deferred laser (low certainty) regarding improvement by three or more ETDRS lines at 24 months.\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence of greater CRT reduction at 24 months with brolucizumab (MD −23 microns, 95% CI −65 to −1 9) and aflibercept (MD −26 microns, 95% CI −53 to 0.9) compared to ranibizumab. There was moderate-certainty evidence of lesser CRT reduction with bevacizumab (MD 28 microns, 95% CI 0 to 56), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 63 microns, 95% CI 18 to 109), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 72 microns, 95% CI 25 to 119) compared with ranibizumab alone.\nRegarding all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (20 trials), we found no evidence of increased risk of death for any drug compared to control, although effects were in the direction of an increase, and clinically relevant increases could not be ruled out. The certainty of this evidence was low for bevacizumab (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.88), brolucizumab (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 12.58), faricimab (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.00), ranibizumab (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34), and very low for conbercept (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.81) and aflibercept (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.77). Estimates for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration arterial thromboembolic events at 24 months did not suggest an increase with any drug compared to control, but the NMA was overall incoherent and the evidence was of low or very low certainty.\nOcular adverse events were rare and poorly reported and could not be assessed in NMAs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs beyond one year of follow-up. We found no clinically important differences in visual outcomes at 24 months in people with DMO, although there were differences in CRT change. We found no evidence that any drug increases all-cause mortality compared to control, but estimates were very imprecise. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated, and the individuals exposed to these drugs may be less healthy than trial participants.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is diabetic macular oedema?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The light-sensitive tissue at the back of the eye is known as the retina. The central area of the retina is called the macula. People with diabetes can develop problems in the retina, known as retinopathy. Some people with diabetic retinopathy can also develop oedema (swelling or thickening) at the macula. DMO is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy and can lead to visual loss."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3404 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPhysical restraints, such as bedrails, belts in chairs or beds, and fixed tables, are commonly used for older people in general hospital settings. Reasons given for using physical restraints are to prevent falls and fall-related injuries, to control challenging behavior (such as agitation or wandering), and to ensure the delivery of medical treatments. Clear evidence of their effectiveness is lacking, and potential harms are recognised, including injuries associated with the use of physical restraints and a negative impact on people's well-being. There are widespread recommendations that their use should be reduced or eliminated.\nObjectives\nTo assess the best evidence for the effects and safety of interventions aimed at preventing and reducing the use of physical restraint of older people in general hospital settings.\nTo describe the content, components and processes of these interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 20 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that investigated the effects of interventions that aimed to prevent or reduce the use of physical restraints in general hospital settings. Eligible settings were acute care and rehabilitation wards. We excluded emergency departments, intensive care and psychiatric units, as well as the use of restrictive measures for penal reasons (e.g. prisoners in general medical wards). We included studies with a mean age of study participants of at least 65 years. Control groups received usual care or active control interventions that were ineligible for inclusion as experimental interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of all included studies. Data were unsuitable for meta-analysis, and we reported results narratively. We used GRADE methods to describe our certainty in the results.\nMain results\nWe included four studies: two randomised controlled trials (one individually-randomised, parallel-group trial and one clustered, stepped-wedge trial) and two controlled clinical trials (both with a clustered design). One study was conducted in general medical wards in Canada and three studies were conducted in rehabilitation hospitals in Hong Kong. A total of 1709 participants were included in three studies; in the fourth study the number of participants was not reported. The mean age ranged from 67 years to 84 years. The duration of follow-up covered the period of patients' hospitalisation in one study (21 days average length of stay) and ranged from 4 to 11 months in the other studies. The definition of physical restraints differed slightly, and one study did not include bedrails.\nThree studies investigated organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy to reduce physical restraints. The theoretical approach of the interventions and the content of the educational components was comparable across studies. The fourth study investigated the use of pressure sensors for participants with an increased falls risk, which gave an alarm if the participant left the bed or chair. Control groups in all studies received usual care.\nThree studies were at high risk of selection bias and risk of detection bias was unclear in all studies.\nBecause of very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy on our primary efficacy outcome: the use of physical restraints in general hospital settings. One study found an increase in the number of participants with at least one physical restraint in the intervention and control groups, one study found a small reduction in both groups, and in the third study (the stepped-wedge study), the number of participants with at least one physical restraint decreased in all clusters after implementation of the intervention but no detailed information was reported. For the use of bed or chair pressure sensor alarms for people with an increased fall risk, we found moderate-certainty evidence of little to no effect of the intervention on the number of participants with at least one physical restraint compared with usual care. None of the studies systematically assessed adverse events related to use of physical restraint use, e.g. direct injuries, or reported such events.\nWe are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy on the number of participants with at least one fall (very low-certainty evidence), and there was no evidence that organisational interventions or the use of bed or chair pressure sensor alarms for people with an increased fall risk reduce the number of falls (low-certainty evidence from one study each). None of the studies reported fall-related injuries. We found low-certainty evidence that organisational interventions may result in little to no difference in functioning (including mobility), and moderate-certainty evidence that the use of bed or chair pressure sensor alarms has little to no effect on mobility. We are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions on the use of psychotropic medication; one study found no difference in the prescription of psychotropic medication. We are uncertain about the effect of organisational interventions on nurses' attitudes and knowledge about the use of physical restraints (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether organisational interventions aimed at implementing a least-restraint policy can reduce physical restraints in general hospital settings. The use of pressure sensor alarms in beds or chairs for people with an increased fall risk has probably little to no effect on the use of physical restraints. Because of the small number of studies and the study limitations, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further research on effective strategies to implement a least-restraint policy and to overcome barriers to physical restraint reduction in general hospital settings is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We aimed to find out which interventions are most effective for preventing or reducing the use of physical restraints for older people in hospitals."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3405 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUndernutrition in the critical first 1000 days of life is the most common form of childhood malnutrition, and a significant problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The effects of undernutrition in children aged under five years are wide-ranging and include increased susceptibility to and severity of infections; impaired physical and cognitive development, which diminishes school and work performance later in life; and death. Growth monitoring and promotion (GMP) is a complex intervention that comprises regular measurement and charting of growth combined with promotion activities. Policymakers, particularly in international aid agencies, have differing and changeable interpretations and perceptions of the purpose of GMP. The effectiveness of GMP as an approach to preventing malnutrition remains a subject of debate, particularly regarding the added value of growth monitoring compared with promotion alone.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of child growth monitoring and promotion for identifying and addressing faltering growth, improving infant and child feeding practices, and promoting contact with and use of health services in children under five years of age in low- and middle-income countries.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 3 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and controlled before-after studies that compared GMP with standard care or nutrition education alone in non-hospitalised children aged under five years.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods to conduct a narrative synthesis. Our primary outcomes were anthropometric indicators, infant and child feeding practices, and health service usage. Secondary outcomes were frequency and severity of childhood illnesses, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each primary outcome.\nMain results\nWe included six studies reported in eight publications. We grouped the findings according to intervention.\nCommunity-based growth monitoring and promotion (without supplementary feeding) versus standard care\nWe are unsure if GMP compared to standard care improves infant and child feeding practices, as measured at 24 months by the proportion of infants who have fluids other than breast milk introduced early (49.7% versus 70.5%; 1 study; 4296 observations; very low-certainty evidence). We are unsure if GMP improves health service usage, as measured at 24 months by the proportion of children who receive vitamin A (72.5% versus 62.9%; 1 study; 4296 observations; very low-certainty evidence) and the proportion of children who receive deworming (29.2% versus 14.6%; 1 study; 4296 observations; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported selected anthropometric indicators (weight-for-age z-score or height-for-age z-score) at 12 or 24 months, infant and child feeding practices at 12 months, or health service usage at 12 months.\nCommunity-based growth monitoring and promotion (with supplementary feeding) versus standard care\nTwo studies (with 569 participants) reported the mean weight-for-age z-score at 12 months, providing very low-certainty evidence: in one study, there was little or no difference between GMP and standard care (mean difference (MD) −0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.19 to 0.06); in the other study, mean weight-for-age z-score worsened in both groups, but we were unable to calculate a relative effect. GMP versus standard care may make little to no difference to the mean height-for-age z-score at 12 months (MD −0.15, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.04; 1 study, 337 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies (with 564 participants) reported a range of outcome measures related to infant and child feeding practices at 12 months, showing little or no difference between the groups (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported health service usage at 12 or 24 months, feeding practices at 24 months, or selected anthropometric indicators at 24 months.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited uncertain evidence on the effectiveness of GMP for identifying and addressing faltering growth, improving infant and child feeding practices, and promoting contact with and use of health services in children aged under five years in LMICs. Future studies should explore the reasons for the apparent limited impact of GMP on key child health indicators. Reporting of GMP interventions and important outcomes must be transparent and consistent.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We aimed to assess the effectiveness of child GMP for identifying and addressing slow growth, improving infant and child feeding practices, and promoting contact with and use of health services in children under five years of age in low- and middle-income countries."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3406 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe first three years of a child's life are a key period of physical, physiological, cognitive and social development, and the caregiver-infant relationship in early infancy plays an important role in influencing these aspects of development. Specifically, caregiver attunement facilitates the move from coregulation to self-regulation; a parent's ability to understand their infant's behaviour as communication is a key part of this process. Early, brief interventions such as the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) or Neonatal Behavioral Observation (NBO) system are potential methods of improving outcomes for both infant and caregiver.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of the NBAS and NBO system for improving caregiver-infant interaction and related outcomes in caregivers and newborn babies. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the NBAS and NBO are more effective for particular groups of infants or parents, and to identify the factors associated with increased effectiveness (e.g. timing, duration, etc.).\nSearch methods\nIn September 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 12 other databases and four trials registers. We also handsearched reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and we contacted the Brazelton Institute and searched its websites to identify any ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that had used at least one standardised measure to assess the effects of the NBAS or NBO versus inactive control for improving outcomes for caregivers and their infants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewer authors independently assessed the records retrieved from the search. One reviewer extracted data, and a second checked them for accuracy. We presented the results for each outcome in each study as standardised mean differences (SMDs) or as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When appropriate, we combined the results in a meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified and included 16 RCTs in this review: 13 assessing the NBAS and 3 the NBO for improving outcomes in 851 randomised participants, including parents and their premature or newborn (aged 4 to 12 weeks) infants. All studies took place in the USA, and we judged all of them to be at high risk of bias.\nSeven studies involving 304 participants contributed data to one meta-analysis of the impact of the NBAS or NBO for caregiver-infant interaction, and the results suggest a significant, medium-sized difference between intervention and control groups (SMD −0.53, 95% CI −0.90 to −0.17; very low-quality evidence), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 51%). Subgroup analysis comparing the two types of programmes (i.e. NBAS and NBO) found a medium but non-significant effect for the NBAS (−0.49, 95% CI −0.99 to 0.00, 5 studies), with high levels of heterogeneity (I2 = 61%), compared with a significant, large effect size for the NBO (−0.69, 95% CI −1.18 to −0.20, 2 studies), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). A test for subgroup differences between the two models, however, was not significant. One study found a significant impact on the secondary outcome of caregiver knowledge (SMD −1.30, 95% CI −2.16 to −0.44; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of an impact on maternal depression. We did not identify any adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently only very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of the NBAS and NBO in terms of improving parent-infant interaction for mostly low-risk, first-time caregivers and their infants. Further research is underway regarding the effectiveness of the NBO and is necessary to corroborate these results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The first three years of a child's life comprise a key period of development, and the caregiver-infant relationship in early infancy has been found to influence later outcomes. Caregiver sensitivity and ability to understand infant behaviours as communication is particularly important for infant development. Early, brief interventions such as the Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (NBAS) or Neonatal Behavioural Observation (NBO) system can potentially improve outcomes for both infant and caregiver."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3407 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2007. Late radiation rectal problems (proctopathy) include bleeding, pain, faecal urgency, and incontinence and may develop after pelvic radiotherapy treatment for cancer.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of non-surgical interventions for managing late radiation proctopathy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2015); MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); CANCERCD; Science Citation Index; and CINAHL from inception to November 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical interventions for the management of late radiation proctopathy in people with cancer who have undergone pelvic radiotherapy for cancer. Primary outcomes considered were: episodes of bowel activity, bleeding, pain, tenesmus, urgency, and sphincter dysfunction.\nData collection and analysis\nStudy selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction were performed in duplicate, and any disagreements were resolved by involving a third review author.\nMain results\nWe identified 1221 unique references and 16 studies including 993 participants that met our inclusion criteria. One study found through the last update was moved to the 'Studies awaiting classification' section. We did not pool outcomes for a meta-analysis due to variation in study characteristics and endpoints across included studies.\nSince radiation proctopathy is a condition with various symptoms or combinations of symptoms, the studies were heterogeneous in their intended effect. Some studies investigated treatments targeted at bleeding only (group 1), some investigated treatments targeted at a combination of anorectal symptoms, but not a single treatment (group 2). The third group focused on the treatment of the collection of symptoms referred to as pelvic radiation disease. In order to enable some comparison of this heterogeneous collection of studies, we describe the effects in these three groups separately.\nNine studies assessed treatments for rectal bleeding and were unclear or at high risk of bias. The only treatments that made a significant difference on primary outcomes were argon plasma coagulation (APC) followed by oral sucralfate versus APC with placebo (endoscopic score 6 to 9 in favour of APC with placebo, risk ratio (RR) 2.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 4.55; 1 study, 122 participants, low- to moderate-quality evidence); formalin dab treatment (4%) versus sucralfate steroid retention enema (symptom score after treatment graded by the Radiation Proctopathy System Assessments Scale (RPSAS) and sigmoidoscopic score in favour of formalin (P = 0.001, effect not quantified, 1 study, 102 participants, very low- to low-quality evidence), and colonic irrigation plus ciprofloxacin and metronidazole versus formalin application (4%) (bleeding (P = 0.007, effect not quantified), urgency (P = 0.0004, effect not quantified), and diarrhoea (P = 0.007, effect not quantified) in favour of colonic irrigation (1 study, 50 participants, low-quality evidence).\nThree studies, of unclear and high risk of bias, assessed treatments targeted at something very localised but not a single pathology. We identified no significant differences on our primary outcomes. We graded all studies as very low-quality evidence due to unclear risk of bias and very serious imprecision.\nFour studies, of unclear and high risk of bias, assessed treatments targeted at more than one symptom yet confined to the anorectal region. Studies that demonstrated an effect on symptoms included: gastroenterologist-led algorithm-based treatment versus usual care (detailed self help booklet) (significant difference in favour of gastroenterologist-led algorithm-based treatment on change in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire–Bowel (IBDQ-B) score at six months, mean difference (MD) 5.47, 95% CI 1.14 to 9.81) and nurse-led algorithm-based treatment versus usual care (significant difference in favour of the nurse-led algorithm-based treatment on change in IBDQ-B score at six months, MD 4.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.19) (1 study, 218 participants, low-quality evidence); hyperbaric oxygen therapy (at 2.0 atmospheres absolute) versus placebo (improvement of Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic - Late Effects of Normal Tissue (SOMA-LENT) score in favour of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), P = 0.0019) (1 study, 150 participants, moderate-quality evidence, retinol palmitate versus placebo (improvement in RPSAS in favour of retinol palmitate, P = 0.01) (1 study, 19 participants, low-quality evidence) and integrated Chinese traditional plus Western medicine versus Western medicine (grade 0 to 1 radio-proctopathy after treatment in favour of integrated Chinese traditional medicine, RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.02) (1 study, 58 participants, low-quality evidence).\nThe level of evidence for the majority of outcomes was downgraded using GRADE to low or very low, mainly due to imprecision and study limitations.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough some interventions for late radiation proctopathy look promising (including rectal sucralfate, metronidazole added to an anti-inflammatory regimen, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy), single small studies provide limited evidence. Furthermore, outcomes important to people with cancer, including quality of life (QoL) and long-term effects, were not well recorded. The episodic and variable nature of late radiation proctopathy requires large multi-centre placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) to establish whether treatments are effective. Future studies should address the possibility of associated injury to other gastro-intestinal, urinary, or sexual organs, known as pelvic radiation disease. The interventions, as well as the outcome parameters, should be broader and include those important to people with cancer, such as QoL evaluations.\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": "We found 16 (quasi) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including 993 participants that assessed non-surgical treatments for radiation proctopathy. Although some treatments look promising (including rectal sucralfate, adding metronidazole to an anti-inflammatory regimen, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy), the quality of evidence was low to very low. Furthermore, outcomes important to people with cancer, including quality of life (QoL), and long-term effects were often not addressed in these studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3408 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with dementia can have feeding and swallowing difficulties (dysphagia). Modification of the consistency of food or fluids, or both, is a common management strategy. However, diet modification can affect quality of life and may lead to dehydration and malnutrition. Evidence on the benefits and risks of modifying food and fluids is mandatory to improve the care of people with dementia and dysphagia.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and adverse effects associated with modifying the consistency of food and fluids in improving oral intake and eliminating aspiration in adults with dysphagia and dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS (the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid SP, Embase via Ovid SP, PsycINFO via Ovid SP, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS via BIREME, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) Portal on 9 May 2018. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify any additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs published in any language that measured any of the outcomes of interest. We included trials with adults with a clinical diagnosis of dementia with symptoms and signs of dysphagia confirmed on instrumental assessment. We included participants with all types, stages and severities of dementia. Control groups received either no intervention or interventions not involving diet modification or modification to sensory properties of food.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed for inclusion all potential studies identified. Data were extracted independently along with assessment of methodological quality using standard Cochrane methods. We contacted study authors for additional unpublished information.\nMain results\nNo trials on modification of food met the inclusion criteria. We included two studies that examined modification to fluids. Both were part of the same large multicentre trial and included people with dementia and people with or without dementia and Parkinson's disease. Participation in the second trial was determined by results from the first trial. With unpublished data supplied by study authors, we examined data from participants with dementia only. The first study, a cross-over trial, investigated the immediate effects on aspiration of two viscosities of liquids (nectar thick and honey thick) compared to regular liquids in 351 participants with dementia using videofluoroscopy. Regular liquids with a chin down head posture, as well as regular liquids without any intervention were also compared. The sequence of interventions during videofluoroscopy may have influenced response to intervention. The second study, a parallel designed RCT, compared the effect of nectar and honey thick liquids with a chin down head posture over a three-month period in a subgroup of 260 participants with dementia. Outcomes were pneumonia and adverse intervention effects. Honey thick liquids, which are more consistent with descriptors for 'spoon thick' or 'extremely thick' liquids, showed a more positive impact on immediate elimination of aspiration during videofluoroscopy, but this consistency showed more adverse effects in the second follow-up study. During the second three-month follow-up trial, there were a greater number of incidents of pneumonia in participants receiving honey thick liquids than those receiving nectar thick liquids or taking regular liquids with a chin down posture. There were no deaths classified as 'definitely related' to the type of fluids prescribed. Neither trial addressed quality of life. Risk of bias for both studies is high. The overall quality of evidence for outcomes in this review is low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the immediate and long-term effects of modifying the consistency of fluid for swallowing difficulties in dementia as too few studies have been completed. There may be differences in outcomes depending on the grade of thickness of fluids and the sequence of interventions trialled in videofluoroscopy for people with dementia. Clinicians should be aware that while thickening fluids may have an immediate positive effect on swallowing, the long-term impact of thickened fluids on the health of the person with dementia should be considered. Further high-quality clinical trials are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found two studies, which were both part of the same multicentre trial and included people with dementia and people with or without dementia and Parkinson's disease. We included data on people with dementia only. The first of the two studies looked at the immediate effects of two viscosities of liquids compared to regular thin liquids on aspiration (entry of food or fluid into the lungs) in 351 people with dementia. This study also compared drinking regular thin liquids using a chin down head posture as well as drinking regular thin liquids without any changes to head position; the main outcome was fluid entering the lungs. Using a subgroup of 260 people with dementia from the first study, the second study compared the effect of the same liquid viscosities with a chin down head posture. The effectiveness of these interventions on the incidence of pneumonia and adverse effects of these interventions was examined over a three-month period."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3409 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value is often limited by the development of infections such as peritonitis and exit-site and tunnel infections. Multiple strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of peritonitis including antibiotics, topical disinfectants to the exit site and antifungal agents. However, the effectiveness of these strategies has been variable and are based on a small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The optimal preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of peritonitis remain unclear.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of antimicrobial strategies used to prevent peritonitis in PD patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 October 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs or quasi-RCTs in patients receiving chronic PD, which evaluated any antimicrobial agents used systemically or locally to prevent peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nThirty-nine studies, randomising 4435 patients, were included. Twenty additional studies have been included in this update. The risk of bias domains were often unclear or high; risk of bias was judged to be low in 19 (49%) studies for random sequence generation, 12 (31%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for incomplete outcome reporting, and in 12 (31%) studies for selective outcome reporting. Blinding of participants and personnel was considered to be at low risk of bias in 8 (21%) and 10 studies (26%) for blinding of outcome assessors. It should be noted that blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in many of the studies because of the nature of the intervention or control treatment.\nThe use of oral or topical antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment, had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 191 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.04) and the risk of peritonitis (5 studies, 395 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.19).\nThe use of nasal antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.87) and the risk of peritonitis (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.31).\nPre/perioperative intravenous vancomycin compared with no treatment may reduce the risk of early peritonitis (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61) but has an uncertain effect on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.32).\nThe use of topical disinfectant compared with standard care or other active treatment (antibiotic or other disinfectant) had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (8 studies, 973 patients, low quality evidence, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33) and the risk of peritonitis (6 studies, 853 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06).\nAntifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin/fluconazole compared with placebo/no treatment may reduce the risk of fungal peritonitis occurring after a patient has had an antibiotic course (2 studies, 817 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63).\nNo intervention reduced the risk of catheter removal or replacement. Most of the available studies were small and of suboptimal quality. Only six studies enrolled 200 or more patients.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this update, we identified limited data from RCTs and quasi-RCTs which evaluated strategies to prevent peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infections. This review demonstrates that pre/peri-operative intravenous vancomycin may reduce the risk of early peritonitis and that antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin or fluconazole reduces the risk of fungal peritonitis following an antibiotic course. However, no other antimicrobial interventions have proven efficacy. In particular, the use of nasal antibiotic to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus, had an uncertain effect on the risk of peritonitis and raises questions about the usefulness of this approach. Given the large number of patients on PD and the importance of peritonitis, the lack of adequately powered and high quality RCTs to inform decision making about strategies to prevent peritonitis is striking.\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 the literature up until 4 October 2016 and identified 39 studies randomising 4435 patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis that were evaluated in this review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3410 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgical options for treating stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are usually explored after conservative interventions have failed. Surgeries fall into two categories: traditional techniques (open surgery) and minimally invasive procedures, such as laparoscopic procedures, midurethral sling and injections with urethral bulking agents. Postsurgery infections, such as infections of the surgical site or urinary tract, are common complications. To minimise the risk of postoperative bacterial infections, prophylactic antibiotics may be given before or during surgery.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotics for preventing infection following continence surgery in women with stress urinary incontinence.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP; and handsearched journals and conference proceedings to 18 March 2021. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing continence surgery to treat SUI.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors selected potentially eligible trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and as mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified one quasi-RCT and two RCTs, involving a total of 390 women. One study performed retropubic urethropexy surgery requiring a transverse suprapubic incision, while the other two studies performed midurethral sling surgery. It should be noted that none of the included studies clearly specified the timing of outcome assessment.\nWe are very uncertain whether prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) have an effect on surgical site infections (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.03 to 12.35; 2 studies, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence) or urinary tract infections or bacteriuria (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.05 to 13.24; 2 studies, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) on febrile morbidity is also uncertain (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.29; 2 studies, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) have any effect on mesh exposure (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.61; 1 study, 59 women; very low-certainty evidence). None of the three included studies described the assessment of adverse events from antibiotic use, sepsis or bacteraemia in their reports.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOnly limited data are available from the three included studies and, overall, the certainty of evidence was very low. Moreover, the three included studies evaluated different surgical procedures and dosages of antibiotic administration.\nThus, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection following anti-incontinence surgery. In addition, there were no data regarding adverse effects of prophylactic antibiotics. More RCTs are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study funding sources\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Two studies received no funding; the third study did not provide funding information."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3411 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMost tobacco control programmes for adolescents are based around prevention of uptake, but teenage smoking is still common. It is unclear if interventions that are effective for adults can also help adolescents to quit. This is the update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of strategies that help young people to stop smoking tobacco.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register in June 2017. This includes reports for trials identified in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsyclNFO.\nSelection criteria\nWe included individually and cluster-randomized controlled trials recruiting young people, aged under 20 years, who were regular tobacco smokers. We included any interventions for smoking cessation; these could include pharmacotherapy, psycho-social interventions and complex programmes targeting families, schools or communities. We excluded programmes primarily aimed at prevention of uptake. The primary outcome was smoking status after at least six months' follow-up among those who smoked at baseline.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of candidate trials and extracted data. We evaluated included studies for risk of bias using standard Cochrane methodology and grouped them by intervention type and by the theoretical basis of the intervention. Where meta-analysis was appropriate, we estimated pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method, based on the quit rates at six months' follow-up.\nMain results\nForty-one trials involving more than 13,000 young people met our inclusion criteria (26 individually randomized controlled trials and 15 cluster-randomized trials). We judged the majority of studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Interventions were varied, with the majority adopting forms of individual or group counselling, with or without additional self-help materials to form complex interventions. Eight studies used primarily computer or messaging interventions, and four small studies used pharmacological interventions (nicotine patch or gum, or bupropion). There was evidence of an intervention effect for group counselling (9 studies, risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.77), but not for individual counselling (7 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.39), mixed delivery methods (8 studies, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66) or the computer or messaging interventions (pooled RRs between 0.79 and 1.18, 9 studies in total). There was no clear evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions, although confidence intervals were wide (nicotine replacement therapy 3 studies, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.58; bupropion 1 study RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.02). No subgroup precluded the possibility of a clinically important effect. Studies of pharmacotherapies reported some adverse events considered related to study treatment, though most were mild, whereas no adverse events were reported in studies of behavioural interventions. Our certainty in the findings for all comparisons is low or very low, mainly because of the clinical heterogeneity of the interventions, imprecision in the effect size estimates, and issues with risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence that either behavioural support or smoking cessation medication increases the proportion of young people that stop smoking in the long-term. Findings are most promising for group-based behavioural interventions, but evidence remains limited for all intervention types. There continues to be a need for well-designed, adequately powered, randomized controlled trials of interventions for this population of smokers.\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": "Although some programmes showed promise, especially those that used group counselling and those that combined a variety of approaches, there was no strong evidence that any particular method was effective in helping young people to stop smoking. Trials differed in how they measured whether a person had quit smoking, and many trials did not have enough participants for us to be confident about wider application of the results. Medications such as nicotine replacement and bupropion were not shown to be successful with adolescents, and some adverse events were reported, although these events were generally mild and findings were based on studies with small numbers of participants. Based on these findings we cannot currently identify a programme for helping adolescents to stop smoking that is more successful than trying to stop unaided."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3412 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a major cause of acute morbidity and mortality. APE results in long-term morbidity in up to 50% of survivors, known as post-pulmonary embolism (post-PE) syndrome.\nAPE can be classified according to the short-term (30-day) risk of mortality, based on a variety of clinical, imaging and laboratory findings. Most mortality and morbidity is concentrated in high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. The first-line treatment for APE is systemic anticoagulation.\nHigh-risk (massive) APE accounts for less than 10% of APE cases and is a life-threatening medical emergency, requiring immediate reperfusion treatment to prevent death. Systemic thrombolysis is the recommended treatment for high-risk (massive) APE. However, only a minority of the people affected receive systemic thrombolysis, due to comorbidities or the 10% risk of major haemorrhagic side effects. Of those who do receive systemic thrombolysis, 8% do not respond in a timely manner. Surgical pulmonary embolectomy is an alternative reperfusion treatment, but is not widely available.\nIntermediate-risk (submassive) APE represents 45% to 65% of APE cases, with a short-term mortality rate of around 3%. Systemic thrombolysis is not recommended for this group, as major haemorrhagic complications outweigh the benefit. However, the people at higher risk within this group have a short-term mortality of around 12%, suggesting that anticoagulation alone is not an adequate treatment. Identification and more aggressive treatment of people at intermediate to high risk, who have a more favourable risk profile for reperfusion treatments, could reduce short-term mortality and potentially reduce post-PE syndrome.\nCatheter-directed treatments (catheter-directed thrombolysis and catheter embolectomy) are minimally invasive reperfusion treatments for high- and intermediate-risk APE. Catheter-directed treatments can be used either as the primary treatment or as salvage treatment after failure of systemic thrombolysis. Catheter-directed thrombolysis administers 10% to 20% of the systemic thrombolysis dose directly into the thrombus in the lungs, potentially reducing the risks of haemorrhagic side effects. Catheter embolectomy mechanically removes the thrombus without the need for thrombolysis, and may be useful for people with contraindications for thrombolysis.\nCurrently, the benefits of catheter-based APE treatments compared with existing medical and surgical treatment are unclear despite increasing adoption of catheter treatments by PE response teams. This review examines the evidence for the use of catheter-directed treatments in high- and intermediate-risk APE. This evidence could help guide the optimal treatment strategy for people affected by this common and life-threatening condition.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of catheter-directed therapies versus alternative treatments for high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 15 March 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of catheter-directed therapies for the treatment of high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. We excluded catheter-directed treatments for non-PE. We applied no restrictions on participant age or on the date, language or publication status of RCTs.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, treatment-associated major and minor haemorrhage rates based on two established clinical definitions, recurrent APE requiring retreatment or change to a different APE treatment, length of hospital stay, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified one RCT (59 participants) of (ultrasound-augmented) catheter-directed thrombolysis for intermediate-risk (submassive) APE.\nWe found no trials of any catheter-directed treatments (thrombectomy or thrombolysis) in people with high-risk (massive) APE or of catheter-based embolectomy in people with intermediate-risk (submassive) APE.\nThe included trial compared ultrasound-augmented catheter-directed thrombolysis with alteplase and systemic heparinisation versus systemic heparinisation alone. In the treatment group, each participant received an infusion of alteplase 10 mg or 20 mg over 15 hours. We identified a high risk of selection and performance bias, low risk of detection and reporting bias, and unclear risk of attrition and other bias. Certainty of evidence was very low because of risk of bias and imprecision.\nBy 90 days, there was no clear difference in all-cause mortality between the treatment group and control group. A single death occurred in the control group at 20 days after randomisation, but it was unrelated to the treatment or to APE (odds ratio (OR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.96; 59 participants).\nBy 90 days, there were no episodes of treatment-associated major haemorrhage in either the treatment or control group. There was no clear difference in treatment-associated minor haemorrhage between the treatment and control group by 90 days (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.30 to 31.79; 59 participants).\nBy 90 days, there were no episodes of recurrent APE requiring retreatment or change to a different APE treatment in the treatment or control group.\nThere was no clear difference in the length of mean total hospital stay between the treatment and control groups. Mean stay was 8.9 (standard deviation (SD) 3.4) days in the treatment group versus 8.6 (SD 3.9) days in the control group (mean difference 0.30, 95% CI −1.57 to 2.17; 59 participants).\nThe included trial did not investigate quality of life measures.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of evidence to support widespread adoption of catheter-based interventional therapies for APE. We identified one small trial showing no clear differences between ultrasound-augmented catheter-directed thrombolysis with alteplase plus systemic heparinisation versus systemic heparinisation alone in all-cause mortality, major and minor haemorrhage rates, recurrent APE and length of hospital stay. Quality of life was not assessed.\nMultiple small retrospective case series, prospective patient registries and single-arm studies suggest potential benefits of catheter-based treatments, but they provide insufficient evidence to recommend this approach over other evidence-based treatments.\nResearchers should consider clinically relevant primary outcomes (e.g. mortality and exercise tolerance), rather than surrogate markers (e.g. right ventricular to left ventricular (RV:LV) ratio or thrombus burden), which have limited clinical utility. Trials must include a control group to determine if the effects are specific to the treatment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is acute pulmonary embolism treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The main treatment for APE is blood thinning medications (anticoagulation). This stops new blood clots from forming whilst the body slowly dissolves the clot, but does not get rid of the blood clot. People with high-risk (massive) APE are so ill that an additional clot-busting medicine (thrombolytic) is recommended – as well as anticoagulation – to save their lives. The thrombolytic is usually given via a drip into an arm vein (systemic thrombolysis). The thrombolytic circulates in the blood to the lungs and dissolves the clot. Unfortunately, most people do not receive systemic thrombolysis because they have a risk factor (such as recent surgery), which makes the risk of major bleeding after receiving the thrombolytic too great. Systemic thrombolysis does not work in 8% of people who receive it, so they need another dose or an alternative treatment. Surgery for APE is an alternative rescue treatment, but it is not widely available.\nFor intermediate-risk (submassive) APE, giving the thrombolytic medicine is not recommended because the risk of major bleeding outweighs the benefit. These people generally only receive anticoagulation. However, some people at intermediate risk will get worse and die. Identifying this higher-risk subgroup so they can receive more aggressive treatment may reduce death and illness."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3413 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDelirium is a very common condition associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. Current critical care guidelines recommend first and foremost the use of nonpharmacological strategies in both the prevention and treatment of delirium. Pharmacological interventions may augment these approaches and they are currently used widely in clinical practice to manage the symptoms of delirium. Benzodiazepines are currently used in clinical practice to treat behavioural disturbances associated with delirium but current guidelines do not recommend their use for this indication. The use of these medicines is controversial because there is uncertainty about whether they are effective for patients or have the potential to harm them.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of benzodiazepines in the treatment of delirium (excluding delirium related to withdrawal from alcohol or benzodiazepines) in any healthcare settings other than intensive care units (ICU).\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register up to 10 April 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), numerous trial registries (including national, international and pharmaceutical registries), and grey literature sources.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in healthcare settings that ranged from nursing homes and long-term care facilities to any hospital setting except for ICUs, involving adult patients with delirium excluding those with delirium related to alcohol or benzodiazepine withdrawal. Included RCTs had to assess the effect of benzodiazepines, at any dose and given by any route, compared with placebo or another drug intended to treat delirium.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We decided whether or not to pool data on the basis of clinical heterogeneity between studies. We used GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified only two trials that satisfied the selection criteria. We did not pool the data because of the substantial clinical differences between the trials.\nIn one trial, participants (n = 58) were patients in an acute palliative care unit with advanced cancer who had a mean age of 64 years. All of the participants had delirium, were treated with haloperidol, and were randomised to receive either lorazepam or placebo in combination with it. Due to very serious imprecision, all evidence was of low certainty. We were unable to determine whether there were clinically important differences in the severity of delirium (mean difference (MD) 2.10, 95% CI -0.96 to 5.16; n = 50), length of hospital admission (MD 0.00, 95% CI -3.45 to 3.45; n = 58), mortality from all causes (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.02; participants = 58) or any of a number of adverse events. Important effects could not be confirmed or excluded. The study authors did not report the length of the delirium episode.\nIn the other trial, participants (n = 30) were patients in general medical wards with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) who had a mean age of 39.2 years. Investigators compared three drug treatments: all participants had delirium, and were randomised to receive lorazepam, chlorpromazine, or haloperidol. Very low-certainty evidence was identified, and we could not determine whether lorazepam differed from either of the other treatments in the effect on severity of delirium, any adverse event, or mortality from all causes. The study authors did not report the length of the delirium episode or the length of hospital admission.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no enough evidence to determine whether benzodiazepines are effective when used to treat patients with delirium who are cared for in non-ICU settings. The available evidence does not support their routine use for this indication. Because of the scarcity of data from randomised controlled trials, further research is required to determine whether or not there is a role for benzodiazepines in the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the medical literature up to 10 April 2019."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3414 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPoor or inequitable access to oral health care is commonly reported in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Although the severity of these problems varies, a lack of supply of dentists and their uneven distribution are important factors. Delegating care to dental auxiliaries could ease this problem, extend services to where they are unavailable and liberate time for dentists to do more complex work. Before such an approach can be advocated, it is important to know the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, costs and cost effectiveness of dental auxiliaries in providing care traditionally provided by dentists.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases from their inception dates up to November 2013: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group's Specialised Register; Cochrane Oral Health Group's Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 11, 2013); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness; five other databases and two trial registries. We also undertook a grey literature search and searched the reference list of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled clinical trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in undertaking clinical tasks traditionally performed by a dentist.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study and two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence from the included studies, according to The Cochrane Collaboration's procedures. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we gave a narrative description of the results.\nMain results\nWe identified five studies (one cluster RCT, three RCTs and one NRCT), evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in providing dental care traditionally provided by dentists, eligible for inclusion in this review. The included studies, which involved 13 dental auxiliaries, six dentists, and more than 1156 participants, evaluated two clinical tasks/techniques: placement of preventive resin fissure sealants and the atraumatic restorative technique (ART). Two studies were conducted in the US, and one each in Canada, Gambia and Singapore.\nOf the four studies evaluating effectiveness in placing preventive resin fissure sealants, three found no evidence of a difference in retention rates of those placed by dental auxiliaries and dentists over a range of follow-up periods (six to 24 months). One study found that fissure sealants placed by a dental auxiliary had lower retention rates than one placed by a dentist after 48 months (9.0% with auxiliary versus 29.1% with dentist). The same study reported that the net reduction after 48 months in the number teeth exhibiting caries (dental decay) was lower for teeth treated by the dental auxiliary than the dentist (3 with auxiliary versus 60 with dentist, P value < 0.001).\nOne study showed no evidence of a difference in dental decay after treatment with fissure sealants between groups. The one study comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in performing ART reported no difference in survival rates of the restorations (fillings) after 12 months.\nAll studies were at high risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence was very low, as assessed using the GRADE approach. In addition, four of the included studies were more than 20 years old; the materials used and the techniques assessed were out of date. We found no eligible studies comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in the diagnosis of oral diseases and conditions, in delivering oral health education and other aspects of health promotion, or studies assessing participants' perspectives including the acceptability of care received. None of the included studies reported adverse effects. In addition, we found no studies comparing the costs and cost-effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists, their impact on access and equity of access to care that met the pre-specified inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe only identified five studies for inclusion in this review, all of which were at high risk of bias and four were published more than 20 years ago, highlighting the paucity of high-quality evaluations of the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in performing clinical tasks. No firm conclusions could be drawn from the present review about the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review aims to assess the relative effectiveness, costs and cost effectiveness, and safety of dental auxiliaries in providing care traditionally provided by dentists."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3415 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUrinary incontinence (UI) is the involuntary loss of urine and can be caused by several different conditions. The common types of UI are stress (SUI), urgency (UUI) and mixed (MUI). A wide range of interventions can be delivered to reduce the symptoms of UI in women. Conservative interventions are generally recommended as the first line of treatment.\nObjectives\nTo summarise Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effects of conservative interventions for treating UI in women.\nMethods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library to January 2021 (CDSR; 2021, Issue 1) and included any Cochrane Review that included studies with women aged 18 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of SUI, UUI or MUI, and investigating a conservative intervention aimed at improving or curing UI. We included reviews that compared a conservative intervention with 'control' (which included placebo, no treatment or usual care), another conservative intervention or another active, but non-conservative, intervention. A stakeholder group informed the selection and synthesis of evidence.\nTwo overview authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data and judged review quality, resolving disagreements through discussion. Primary outcomes of interest were patient-reported cure or improvement and condition-specific quality of life. We judged the risk of bias in included reviews using the ROBIS tool. We judged the certainty of evidence within the reviews based on the GRADE approach. Evidence relating to SUI, UUI or all types of UI combined (AUI) were synthesised separately. The AUI group included evidence relating to participants with MUI, as well as from studies that combined women with different diagnoses (i.e. SUI, UUI and MUI) and studies in which the type of UI was unclear.\nMain results\nWe included 29 relevant Cochrane Reviews. Seven focused on physical therapies; five on education, behavioural and lifestyle advice; one on mechanical devices; one on acupuncture and one on yoga. Fourteen focused on non-conservative interventions but had a comparison with a conservative intervention. No reviews synthesised evidence relating to psychological therapies. There were 112 unique trials (including 8975 women) that had primary outcome data included in at least one analysis.\nStress urinary incontinence (14 reviews)\nConservative intervention versus control: there was moderate or high certainty evidence that pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), PFMT plus biofeedback and cones were more beneficial than control for curing or improving UI. PFMT and intravaginal devices improved quality of life compared to control.\nOne conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: for cure and improvement of UI, there was moderate or high certainty evidence that: continence pessary plus PFMT was more beneficial than continence pessary alone; PFMT plus educational intervention was more beneficial than cones; more-intensive PFMT was more beneficial than less-intensive PFMT; and PFMT plus an adherence strategy was more beneficial than PFMT alone. There was no moderate or high certainty evidence for quality of life.\nUrgency urinary incontinence (five reviews)\nConservative intervention versus control: there was moderate to high-certainty evidence demonstrating that PFMT plus feedback, PFMT plus biofeedback, electrical stimulation and bladder training were more beneficial than control for curing or improving UI. Women using electrical stimulation plus PFMT had higher quality of life than women in the control group.\nOne conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: for cure or improvement, there was moderate certainty evidence that electrical stimulation was more effective than laseropuncture. There was high or moderate certainty evidence that PFMT resulted in higher quality of life than electrical stimulation and electrical stimulation plus PFMT resulted in better cure or improvement and higher quality of life than PFMT alone.\nAll types of urinary incontinence (13 reviews)\nConservative intervention versus control: there was moderate to high certainty evidence of better cure or improvement with PFMT, electrical stimulation, weight loss and cones compared to control. There was moderate certainty evidence of improved quality of life with PFMT compared to control.\nOne conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: there was moderate or high certainty evidence of better cure or improvement for PFMT with bladder training than bladder training alone. Likewise, PFMT with more individual health professional supervision was more effective than less contact/supervision and more-intensive PFMT was more beneficial than less-intensive PFMT. There was moderate certainty evidence that PFMT plus bladder training resulted in higher quality of life than bladder training alone.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high certainty that PFMT is more beneficial than control for all types of UI for outcomes of cure or improvement and quality of life. We are moderately certain that, if PFMT is more intense, more frequent, with individual supervision, with/without combined with behavioural interventions with/without an adherence strategy, effectiveness is improved. We are highly certain that, for cure or improvement, cones are more beneficial than control (but not PFMT) for women with SUI, electrical stimulation is beneficial for women with UUI, and weight loss results in more cure and improvement than control for women with AUI.\nMost evidence within the included Cochrane Reviews is of low certainty. It is important that future new and updated Cochrane Reviews develop questions that are more clinically useful, avoid multiple overlapping reviews and consult women with UI to further identify outcomes of importance.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is urinary incontinence treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Treatment options for urinary incontinence mainly include 'conservative treatment' (avoiding invasive methods), medication and surgery. Conservative treatments should be offered first and these include training of the pelvic floor muscle (muscle between the tail bone (coccyx) and pubic bone that support the bladder, bowel, vagina, and womb) (with and without add-on treatments such as electrical stimulation), bladder training and devices. These are usually provided by physiotherapists or nurses who have had specialist training."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3416 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPersistent depressive disorder (PDD) is defined as a depressive disorder with a minimum illness duration of two years, including four diagnostic subgroups (dysthymia, chronic major depression, recurrent major depression with incomplete remission between episodes, and double depression). Persistent forms of depression represent a substantial proportion of depressive disorders, with a lifetime prevalence ranging from 3% to 6% in the Western world. Growing evidence indicates that PDD responds well to several acute interventions, such as combined psychological and pharmacological treatments. Yet, given the high rates of relapse and recurrences of depression following response to acute treatment, long-term continuation and maintenance therapy are of great importance. To date, there has been no evidence synthesis available on continuation and maintenance treatments of PDDs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacological and psychological (either alone or combined) continuation and maintenance treatments for persistent depressive disorder, in comparison with each other, placebo (drug/attention placebo/non-specific treatment control), and treatment as usual (TAU). Continuation treatments are defined as treatments given to currently remitted people (remission is defined as depressive symptoms dropping below case level) or to people who previously responded to an antidepressant treatment. Maintenance therapy is given during recovery (which is defined as remission lasting longer than six months).\nSearch methods\nWe searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 28 September 2018. An earlier search of these databases was also conducted for RCTs via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 Dec 2015). In addition we searched grey literature resources as well as the international trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP to 28 September 2018. We screened reference lists of included studies and contacted the first author of all included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) in adults with formally diagnosed PDD, receiving pharmacological, psychological, or combined continuation and maintenance interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies and extracted and analyzed data. The primary efficacy outcome was relapse/recurrence rate of depression. The primary acceptance outcome was dropout due to any reason other than relapse/recurrence. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies (seven RCTs, three NRCTs) involving 840 participants in this review, from which five studies investigated continuation treatments and five studies investigated maintenance treatments. Overall, the included studies were at low-to-moderate risk of bias. For the three NRCTs, the most common source of risk of bias was selection of reported results. For the seven RCTs, the most common sources of risk of bias was non-blinding of outcome assessment and other bias (especially conflict of interest due to pharmaceutical sponsoring).\nPharmacological continuation and maintenance therapies\nThe most common comparison was antidepressant medication versus tablet placebo (five studies). Participants taking antidepressant medication were probably less likely to relapse or to experience a recurrent episode compared to participants in the placebo group at the end of the intervention (13.9% versus 33.8%, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; participants = 383; studies = 4; I² = 54%, moderate quality evidence). Overall dropout rates may be similar between participants in the medication and placebo group (23.0% versus 25.5%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.11; RCTs = 4; participants = 386; I² = 64%, low quality evidence). However, sensitivity analyses showed that the primary outcome (rate of relapse/recurrence) showed no evidence of a difference between groups when only including studies with low risk of bias.\nNone of the studies compared pharmacological or psychological treatments versus TAU.\nPsychological continuation and maintenance therapies\nOne study compared psychological therapies versus attention placebo/non-specific control. One study compared psychotherapy with medication. The results of the studies including psychotherapy might indicate that continued or maintained psychotherapy could be a useful intervention compared to no treatment or antidepressant medication. However, the body of evidence for these comparisons was too small and uncertain to draw any high quality conclusions.\nCombined psychological and pharmacological continuation and maintenance therapies\nThree studies compared combined psychological and pharmacological therapies with pharmacological therapies alone. One study compared combined psychological and pharmacological therapies with psychotherapeutic therapies alone. However, the body of evidence for these comparisons was too small and uncertain to draw any high quality conclusions\nComparison of different antidepressant medications\nTwo studies reported data on the direct comparison of two antidepressants. However, the body of evidence for this comparison was too small and uncertain to draw any high quality conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, it is uncertain whether continued or maintained pharmacotherapy (or both) with the reviewed antidepressant agents is a robust treatment for preventing relapse and recurrence in people with PDD, due to moderate or high risk of bias as well as clinical heterogeneity in the analyzed studies.\nFor all other comparisons, the body of evidence was too small to draw any final conclusions, although continued or maintained psychotherapy might be effective compared to no treatment. There is need for more high quality trials of psychological interventions. Further studies should address health-related quality of life and adverse events more precisely, as well as assessing follow-up data.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does the evidence from the review tell us?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "According to GRADE, there was moderate quality evidence that participants taking medication treatment probably had less relapses/recurrences and may have lower dropouts than those taking placebo. The risk of depression returning in participants receiving a placebo (instead of antidepressant medicine) was 34%. In comparison, participants who remained on antidepressant medicines had a lower risk for recurrence of 13%. The continued treatment lasted between four months and two years. Antidepressant were as well accepted as placebo. However, as most of the included studies showed risk of bias and there were some inconsistent results between the different studies, it cannot be concluded with certainty whether continued or maintained pharmacotherapy (or both) is a convincing treatment for people with PDD. Additionally, as studies on the long-term effects of medication are lacking, recommendations on the necessary duration of medication treatment cannot be drawn.\nThe benefits of psychological therapies or combined treatment remained unclear, due to the small number of studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3417 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThyroid eye disease (TED) is an autoimmune disorder that constitutes a major clinical and therapeutic challenge. Current treatment options for moderate-to-severe TED include immunotherapy, orbital radiotherapy and decompression surgery. Limited drugs of proven efficacy are available for the treatment of people with TED. Given the role in the pathogenesis of TED of interleukin (IL)-6 expression in adipocytes, fibroblasts and macrophages, the proposed theory is that inhibition of IL-6 by tocilizumab may be an effective treatment in TED by directly reducing the inflammatory response. In addition, there is an unmet need for a new treatment that can modify the natural course of the disease and reduce the incidence of late complications that can occur as a result of fibrosis following inflammation.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the efficacy and harms of tocilizumab for the treatment of people with TED.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 6); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME; OpenGrey; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the EU Clinical Trials Register. The date of the search was 31 July 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for trials of tocilizumab administered by intravenous infusion using any dosage regimen, compared with placebo or intravenous glucocorticoid therapy for people with TED.\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to use standard methods recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome was change in TED score (as defined by investigators). Secondary outcomes included measurement of the following parameters: change in proptosis, change in extraocular motility, change in palpebral aperture measurements, number of relapses, development of optic neuropathy and change in quality of life score. We planned to measure these outcomes at three months (range two to six months) and 12 months (range six to 18 months) post-treatment. Adverse outcomes included any adverse effects identified in the trials at any time point.\nMain results\nNo studies met the inclusion criteria of this review. We found one randomised, placebo-controlled, double masked study (NCT01297699). This study plans to evaluate the efficacy and harms of tocilizumab administration in people with moderate-to-severe or sight-threatening graves' ophthalmopathy (GO), that had not responded adequately to treatment with intravenous corticosteroid pulses. It was completed in December 2015 and will be assessed for inclusion in the review when data become available.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and harms of tocilizumab for the treatment of people with TED.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The Cochrane researchers found no completed studies that met the standard to be included in this review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3418 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise or physical activity is recommended for improving pain and functional status in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. These are complex interventions whose effectiveness depends on one or more components that are often poorly identified. It has been suggested that health benefits may be greater with high-intensity rather than low-intensity exercise or physical activity.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of high- versus low-intensity physical activity or exercise programs in people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; issue 06, 2014), MEDLINE (194 8 to June 2014) , EMBASE (198 0 to June 2014), CINAHL (1982 to June 2014), PEDro (1929 to June 2014), SCOPUS (to June 2014) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Registry Platform (to June 2014) for articles, without a language restriction. We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, trials, and reference lists and contacted researchers and experts in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials of people with knee or hip osteoarthritis that compared high- versus low-intensity physical activity or exercise programs between the experimental and control group.\nHigh-intensity physical activity or exercise programs training had to refer to an increase in the overall amount of training time (frequency, duration, number of sessions) or the amount of work (strength, number of repetitions) or effort/energy expenditure (exertion, heart rate, effort).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data on trial details. We contacted authors for additional information if necessary. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for these outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included reports for six studies of 656 participants that compared high- and low-intensity exercise programs; five studies exclusively recruited people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (620 participants), and one study exclusively recruited people with hip or knee osteoarthritis (36 participants). The majority of the participants were females (70%). No studies evaluated physical activity programs. We found the overall quality of evidence to be low to very low due to concerns about study limitations and imprecision (small number of studies, large confidence intervals) for the major outcomes using the GRADE approach. Most of the studies had an unclear or high risk of bias for several domains, and we judged five of the six studies to be at high risk for performance, detection, and attrition bias.\nLow-quality evidence indicated reduced pain on a 20-point Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale (mean difference (MD) -0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.63 to -0.04; 4% absolute reduction, 95% CI -8% to 0%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 14 to 22) and improved physical function on the 68-point WOMAC disability subscale (MD -2.65, 95% CI -5.29 to -0.01; 4% absolute reduction; NNTB 10, 95% CI 8 to 13) immediately at the end of the exercise programs (from 8 to 24 weeks). However, these results are unlikely to be of clinical importance. These small improvements did not continue at longer-term follow-up (up to 40 weeks after the end of the intervention). We are uncertain of the effect on quality of life, as only one study reported this outcome (0 to 200 scale; MD 4.3, 95% CI -6.5 to 15.2; 2% absolute reduction; very low level of evidence).\nOur subgroup analyses provided uncertain evidence as to whether increased exercise time (duration, number of sessions) and level of resistance (strength or effort) have an impact on the exercise program effects.\nThree studies reported withdrawals due to adverse events. The number of dropouts was small. Only one study systematically monitored adverse effects, but four studies reported some adverse effects related to knee pain associated with an exercise program. We are uncertain as to whether high intensity increases the number of adverse effects (Peto odds ratio 1.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.81; - 2% absolute risk reduction; very low level of evidence). None of the included studies reported serious adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low-quality to low-quality evidence for no important clinical benefit of high-intensity compared to low-intensity exercise programs in improving pain and physical function in the short term. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of different types of intensity of exercise programs.\nWe are uncertain as to whether higher-intensity exercise programs may induce more harmful effects than those of lower intensity; this must be evaluated by further studies. Withdrawals due to adverse events were poorly monitored and not reported systematically in each group. We downgraded the evidence to low or very low because of the risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.\nThe small number of studies comparing high- and low-intensity exercise programs in osteoarthritis underscores the need for more studies investigating the dose–response relationship in exercise programs. In particular, further studies are needed to establish the minimal intensity of exercise programs needed for clinical effect and the highest intensity patients can tolerate. Larger studies should comply with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and systematically report harms data to evaluate the potential impact of highest intensities of exercise programs in people with joint damage.\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": "Osteoarthritis is a chronic condition that affects the joints (commonly hips, knees, spine, and hands). Over time, cartilage wears down in joints. People with osteoarthritis generally feel pain and can have difficulties performing daily activities such as walking. Exercise or physical activity programs are non-drug treatments usually recommended for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Many types of exercises are prescribed, but it may be unclear whether or not they are effective. Several different components can play a role in the effectiveness of an exercise regimen, such as exercise duration, frequency, or level of resistance. High intensity can be defined as an extra amount of time (duration or frequency) or resistance (strength or effort) required in the exercise programs."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3419 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDuring intensive care unit (ICU) admission, patients and their carers experience physical and psychological stressors that may result in psychological conditions including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Improving communication between healthcare professionals, patients, and their carers may alleviate these disorders. Communication may include information or educational interventions, in different formats, aiming to improve knowledge of the prognosis, treatment, or anticipated challenges after ICU discharge.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of information or education interventions for improving outcomes in adult ICU patients and their carers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from database inception to 10 April 2017. We searched clinical trials registries and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and planned to include quasi-RCTs, comparing information or education interventions presented to participants versus no information or education interventions, or comparing information or education interventions as part of a complex intervention versus a complex intervention without information or education. We included participants who were adult ICU patients, or their carers; these included relatives and non-relatives, including significant representatives of patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and applied GRADE criteria to assess certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs with 1157 patient participants and 943 carer participants. We found no quasi-RCTs. We identified seven studies that await classification, and three ongoing studies.\nThree studies designed an intervention targeted at patients, four at carers, and one at both patients and carers. Studies included varied information: standardised or tailored, presented once or several times, and that included verbal or written information, audio recordings, multimedia information, and interactive information packs. Five studies reported robust methods of randomisation and allocation concealment. We noted high attrition rates in five studies. It was not feasible to blind participants, and we rated all studies as at high risk of performance bias, and at unclear risk of detection bias because most outcomes required self reporting.\nWe attempted to pool data statistically, however this was not always possible due to high levels of heterogeneity. We calculated mean differences (MDs) using data reported from individual study authors where possible, and narratively synthesised the results. We reported the following two comparisons.\nInformation or education intervention versus no information or education intervention (4 studies)\nFor patient anxiety, we did not pool data from three studies (332 participants) owing to unexplained substantial statistical heterogeneity and possible clinical or methodological differences between studies. One study reported less anxiety when an intervention was used (MD -3.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.38 to -3.02), and two studies reported little or no difference between groups (MD -0.40, 95% CI -4.75 to 3.95; MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.94 to 0.94). Similarly, for patient depression, we did not pool data from two studies (160 patient participants). These studies reported less depression when an information or education intervention was used (MD -2.90, 95% CI -4.00 to -1.80; MD -1.27, 95% CI -1.47 to -1.07). However, it is uncertain whether information or education interventions reduce patient anxiety or depression due to very low-certainty evidence.\nIt is uncertain whether information or education interventions improve health-related quality of life due to very low-certainty evidence from one study reporting little or no difference between intervention groups (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.99 to 2.39; 143 patient participants). No study reported adverse effects, knowledge acquisition, PTSD severity, or patient or carer satisfaction.\nWe used the GRADE approach and downgraded certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations, inconsistencies between results, and limited data from few small studies.\nInformation or education intervention as part of a complex intervention versus a complex intervention without information or education (4 studies)\nOne study (three comparison groups; 38 participants) reported little or no difference between groups in patient anxiety (tailored information pack versus control: MD 0.09, 95% CI -3.29 to 3.47; standardised general ICU information versus control: MD -0.25, 95% CI -4.34 to 3.84), and little or no difference in patient depression (tailored information pack versus control: MD -1.26, 95% CI -4.48 to 1.96; standardised general ICU information versus control: MD -1.47, 95% CI -6.37 to 3.43). It is uncertain whether information or education interventions as part of a complex intervention reduce patient anxiety and depression due to very low-certainty evidence.\nOne study (175 carer participants) reported fewer carer participants with poor comprehension among those given information (risk ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53), but again this finding is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence.\nTwo studies (487 carer participants) reported little or no difference in carer satisfaction; it is uncertain whether information or education interventions as part of a complex intervention increase carer satisfaction due to very low-certainty evidence. Adverse effects were reported in only one study: one participant withdrew because of deterioration in mental health on completion of anxiety and depression questionnaires, but the study authors did not report whether this participant was from the intervention or comparison group.\nWe downgraded certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations, and limited data from few small studies.\nNo studies reported severity of PTSD, or health-related quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain of the effects of information or education interventions given to adult ICU patients and their carers, as the evidence in all cases was of very low certainty, and our confidence in the evidence was limited. Ongoing studies may contribute more data and introduce more certainty when incorporated into future updates of the review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current up to 10 April 2017. We included eight studies with 1157 ICU patients and 943 carers of ICU patients. Seven studies are awaiting classification because we could not assess their eligibility, and three studies are ongoing. We included studies that assessed information given to patients or their carers compared to no information, and studies that assessed information as part of a more complex intervention compared to a complex intervention that did not include information or education. Studies included varied information: standardised or tailored to the individual, given regularly or on a single occasion, and that included verbal or written information, audio recordings, multimedia information, and interactive information packs."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3420 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAortic valve disease is a common condition that is easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum longitudinally down the centre (\"median sternotomy\") and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is generally well tolerated, but as less invasive options have become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access has raised safety concerns with regards to the placement of cannulae, venting of the heart, epicardial wire placement, and de-airing of the heart at the end of the procedure. These difficulties may increase operating times, affecting outcome. The benefits of smaller incisions are thought to include decreased pain; improved respiratory mechanics; reductions in wound infections, bleeding, and need for transfusion; shorter intensive care stay; better cosmesis; and a quicker return to normal activity.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy in people with aortic valve disease requiring surgical replacement.\nSearch methods\nWe performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, clinical trials registries, and manufacturers' websites from inception to July 2016, with no language limitations. We reviewed references of identified papers to identify any further studies of relevance.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing aortic valve replacement via a median sternotomy versus aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy. We excluded trials that performed other minimally invasive incisions such as mini-thoracotomies, port access, trans-apical, trans-femoral or robotic procedures. Although some well-conducted prospective and retrospective case-control and cohort studies exist, these were not included in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial papers to extract data, assess quality, and identify risk of bias. A third review author provided arbitration where required. The quality of evidence was determined using the GRADE methodology and results of patient-relevant outcomes were summarised in a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nThe review included seven trials with 511 participants. These included adults from centres in Austria, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Egypt. We performed 12 comparisons investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy.\nThere was no evidence of any effect of upper hemi-sternotomy on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.82; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no evidence of an increase in cardiopulmonary bypass time with aortic valve replacement performed via an upper hemi-sternotomy (mean difference (MD) 3.02 minutes, 95% CI -4.10 to 10.14; participants = 311; studies = 5; low quality). There was no evidence of an increase in aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.95 minutes, 95% CI -3.45 to 5.35; participants = 391; studies = 6; low quality). None of the included studies reported major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite end point.\nThere was no evidence of an effect on length of hospital stay through limited hemi-sternotomy (MD -1.31 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 0.01; participants = 297; studies = 5; I2 = 89%; very low quality). Postoperative blood loss was lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -158.00 mL, 95% CI -303.24 to -12.76; participants = 297; studies = 5; moderate quality). The evidence did not support a reduction in deep sternal wound infections (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.30; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality) or re-exploration (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.13; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.33, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.20; participants = 197; studies = 3; I2 = 70%; very low quality), but there was a small increase in postoperative pulmonary function tests with minimally invasive limited sternotomy (MD 1.98 % predicted FEV1, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.33; participants = 257; studies = 4; I2 = 28%; low quality). There was a small reduction in length of intensive care unit stays as a result of the minimally invasive upper hemi-sternotomy (MD -0.57 days, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.20; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was not reduced with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through limited compared to full sternotomy (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.89; participants = 240; studies = 3; moderate quality), neither were postoperative ventilation times (MD -1.12 hours, 95% CI -3.43 to 1.19; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). None of the included studies reported cost analyses.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence in this review was assessed as generally low to moderate quality. The study sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in outcomes with low event rates. Clinical heterogeneity both between and within studies is a relatively fixed feature of surgical trials, and this also contributed to the need for caution in interpreting results.\nConsidering these limitations, there was uncertainty of the effect on mortality or extracorporeal support times with upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement compared to full median sternotomy. The evidence to support a reduction in total hospital length of stay or intensive care stay was low in quality. There was also uncertainty of any difference in the rates of other, secondary outcome measures or adverse events with minimally invasive limited sternotomy approaches to aortic valve replacement.\nThere appears to be uncertainty between minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemi-sternotomy and conventional aortic valve replacement via a full median sternotomy. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality-of-life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which studies were included in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We checked scientific databases to find published and unpublished studies that compared fully opening the breastbone (called \"median sternotomy\") for aortic valve replacement against opening just part of the breastbone (called \"minimally invasive\" or \"partial\" sternotomy) for the same operation. We searched all records up to July 2016 and found seven studies that answered this question that had 511 participants in them."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3421 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects.\nObjectives\nTo compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator).\nQuasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data.\nWe assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes.\nThe primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects.\nMain results\nWe identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery.\nIn the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification.\nESPB compared to no block\nThere is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nESPB compared to placebo block\nESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques\nParavertebral block (PVB)\nESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nTransversus abdominis plane block (TAPB)\nESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nSerratus anterior plane block (SAPB)\nThe effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nPectoralis plane block (PECSB)\nESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed.\nQuadratus lumborum block (QLB)\nOnly one study reported on each of the primary outcomes.\nIntercostal nerve block (ICNB)\nESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nEpidural analgesia (EA)\nWe are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia.\nWe identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.\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": "Postoperative pain at rest 24 hours after surgery did not show a clinically relevant difference, with no additional benefit on postoperative pain intensity.\nBlock-related adverse events were very rare, and we did not observe a significant difference between groups.\nOral opioid consumption as well as opioid-related side effects (such as nausea and itching) were decreased in the groups of patients receiving ESPB treatment."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3422 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVitamin D and related compounds have been used to prevent osteoporotic fractures in older people. This is the third update of a Cochrane review first published in 1996.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of vitamin D or related compounds, with or without calcium, for preventing fractures in post-menopausal women and older men.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (to December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to November Week 3 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 50), CINAHL (1982 to December 2012), BIOSIS (1985 to 3 January 2013), Current Controlled Trials (December 2012) and reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials that compared vitamin D or related compounds, alone or with calcium, against placebo, no intervention or calcium alone, and that reported fracture outcomes in older people. The primary outcome was hip fracture.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial risk of selection bias and aspects of methodological quality, and extracted data. Data were pooled, where possible, using the fixed-effect model, or the random-effects model when heterogeneity between studies appeared substantial.\nMain results\nWe included 53 trials with a total of 91,791 participants. Thirty-one trials, with sample sizes ranging from 70 to 36,282 participants, examined vitamin D (including 25-hydroxy vitamin D) with or without calcium in the prevention of fractures in community, nursing home or hospital inpatient populations. Twelve of these 31 trials had participants with a mean or median age of 80 years or over.\nAnother group of 22 smaller trials examined calcitriol or alfacalcidol (1-alphahydroxyvitamin D3), mostly with participants who had established osteoporosis. These trials were carried out in the setting of institutional referral clinics or hospitals.\nIn the assessment of risk of bias for random sequence generation, 21 trials (40%) were deemed to be at low risk, 28 trials (53%) at unclear risk and four trials at high risk (8%). For allocation concealment, 22 trials were at low risk (42%), 29 trials were at unclear risk (55%) and two trials were at high risk (4%).\nThere is high quality evidence that vitamin D alone, in the formats and doses tested, is unlikely to be effective in preventing hip fracture (11 trials, 27,693 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.98 to 1.29) or any new fracture (15 trials, 28,271 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11).\nThere is high quality evidence that vitamin D plus calcium results in a small reduction in hip fracture risk (nine trials, 49,853 participants; RR 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.96; P value 0.01). In low-risk populations (residents in the community: with an estimated eight hip fractures per 1000 per year), this equates to one fewer hip fracture per 1000 older adults per year (95% CI 0 to 2). In high risk populations (residents in institutions: with an estimated 54 hip fractures per 1000 per year), this equates to nine fewer hip fractures per 1000 older adults per year (95% CI 2 to 14).\nThere is high quality evidence that vitamin D plus calcium is associated with a statistically significant reduction in incidence of new non-vertebral fractures. However, there is only moderate quality evidence of an absence of a statistically significant preventive effect on clinical vertebral fractures. There is high quality evidence that vitamin D plus calcium reduces the risk of any type of fracture (10 trials, 49,976 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99).\nIn terms of the results for adverse effects: mortality was not adversely affected by either vitamin D or vitamin D plus calcium supplementation (29 trials, 71,032 participants, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.01). Hypercalcaemia, which was usually mild (2.6 to 2.8 mmol/L), was more common in people receiving vitamin D or an analogue, with or without calcium (21 trials, 17,124 participants, RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.57 to 3.31), especially for calcitriol (four trials, 988 participants, RR 4.41, 95% CI 2.14 to 9.09), than in people receiving placebo or control. There was also a small increased risk of gastrointestinal symptoms (15 trials, 47,761 participants, RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08), especially for calcium plus vitamin D (four trials, 40,524 participants, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09), and a significant increase in renal disease (11 trials, 46,548 participants, RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.33). Other systematic reviews have found an increased association of myocardial infarction with supplemental calcium; and evidence of increased myocardial infarction and stroke, but decreased cancer, with supplemental calcium plus vitamin D, without an overall effect on mortality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVitamin D alone is unlikely to prevent fractures in the doses and formulations tested so far in older people. Supplements of vitamin D and calcium may prevent hip or any type of fracture. There was a small but significant increase in gastrointestinal symptoms and renal disease associated with vitamin D and calcium. This review found that there was no increased risk of death from taking calcium and vitamin D.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the impact of bone fractures in older people?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Fractures due to osteoporosis often occur in the hip, wrist or spine and can lead to considerable disability or even death. Those who survive often have reduced mobility and may require greater social and nursing care."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3423 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBlepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids that involves changes of the eyelids, dysfunction of the meibomian glands, and inflammation of the conjunctiva and cornea. Chronic inflammation of the cornea can lead to scarring, vascularisation and opacity. BKC in children can cause significant symptoms including irritation, watering, photophobia and loss of vision from corneal opacity, refractive error or amblyopia.\nTreatment of BKC is directed towards modification of meibomian gland disease and the bacterial flora of lid margin and conjunctiva, and control of ocular surface inflammation. Although both topical and systemic treatments are used to treat people with BKC, this Cochrane review focuses on topical treatments.\nObjectives\nTo assess and compare data on the efficacy and safety of topical treatments (including antibiotics, steroids, immunosuppressants and lubricants), alone or in combination, for BKC in children from birth to 16 years.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE ( January 1946 to 11 July 2016), Embase (January 1980 to 11 July 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 11 July 2016. We searched the reference lists of identified reports and the Science Citation Index to identify any additional reports of studies that met the inclusion criteria.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials that involved topical treatments in children up to 16 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of BKC. We planned to include studies that evaluated a single topical medication versus placebo, a combination of treatments versus placebo, and those that compared two or multiple active treatments. We planned to include studies in which participants received additional treatments, such as oral antibiotics, oral anti-inflammatories, warm lid compresses and lid margin cleaning.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the results of the literature search (titles and abstracts) to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria of the review and applied standards as expected for Cochrane reviews. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included one study from the USA that met the inclusion criteria. In the study, 137 children aged zero to six years old with blepharoconjunctivitis were randomised to treatment in one of four trial arms (loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin combination, loteprednol etabonate alone, tobramycin alone or placebo) for 15 days, with assessments on days 1, 3, 7 and 15. We judged the study to be at high risk of attrition bias and bias due to selective outcome reporting. The study did not report the number of children with improvement in symptoms nor with total or partial success as measured by changes in clinical symptoms.\nAll children showed a reduction in blepharoconjunctivitis grade score, but there was no evidence of important differences between groups. Visual acuity was not fully reported but the authors stated that there was no change in visual acuity in any of the treatment groups. The study reported ocular and non ocular adverse events but was underpowered to detect differences between the groups. Ocular adverse events were as follows: loteprednol/tobramycin 1/34 (eye pain); loteprednol 4/35 (eye pain, conjunctivitis, eye discharge, eye inflammation); tobramycin 0/34; placebo (vehicle) 0/34. The evidence was limited for all these outcomes and we judged it to be very low certainty.\nThere was no information on clinical signs (aside from grade score), disease progression or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no high-quality evidence of the safety and efficacy of topical treatments for BKC, which resulted in uncertainty about the indications and effectiveness of topical treatment. Clinical trials are required to test efficacy and safety of current and any future treatments. Outcome measures need to be developed which can capture both objective clinical and patient-reported aspects of the condition and treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is no good evidence as to the benefits and harms of topical treatments for BKC in children."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3424 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the first update of a review published in 2015, Issue 1. Chronic pain is common during childhood and adolescence and is associated with negative outcomes, such as increased severity of pain, reduced function, and low mood. Psychological therapies, traditionally delivered face-to-face with a therapist, are efficacious at reducing pain intensity and disability. To address barriers to treatment access, such as distance and cost of treatment, technology is being used to deliver these psychological therapies remotely. Therapies delivered remotely, such as via the Internet, computer-based programmes, and smartphone applications, can be used to deliver treatment to children and adolescents with chronic pain.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of psychological therapies delivered remotely compared to waiting list, treatment as usual, or active control treatments, for the management of chronic pain in children and adolescents.\nSearch methods\nWe searched four databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) from inception to May 2018 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remotely-delivered psychological interventions for children and adolescents with chronic pain. We searched for chronic pain conditions including, but not exclusive to, headache, recurrent abdominal pain, musculoskeletal pain, and neuropathic pain. We also searched online trial registries, reference sections, and citations of included studies for potential trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs that investigated the efficacy of a psychological therapy delivered remotely via technology in comparison to an active, treatment as usual, or waiting-list control. We considered blended treatments, which used a combination of technology and up to 30% face-to-face interaction. Interventions had to be delivered primarily via technology to be included, and we excluded interventions delivered via telephone. We included studies that delivered interventions to children and adolescents (up to 18 years of age) with a chronic pain condition or where chronic pain was a primary symptom of their condition (e.g. juvenile arthritis). We included studies that reported 10 or more participants in each comparator arm, at each extraction point.\nData collection and analysis\nWe combined all psychological therapies in the analyses. We split pain conditions into headache and mixed (non-headache) pain and analysed them separately. We extracted pain severity/intensity, disability, depression, anxiety, and adverse events as primary outcomes, and satisfaction with treatment as a secondary outcome. We considered outcomes at two time points: first immediately following the end of treatment (known as 'post-treatment'), and second, any follow-up time point post-treatment between three and 12 months (known as 'follow-up'). We assessed risk of bias and all outcomes for quality using the GRADE assessment.\nMain results\nWe found 10 studies with 697 participants (an additional 4 studies with 326 participants since the previous review) that delivered treatment remotely; four studies investigated children with headache conditions, one study was with children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, one included children with sickle cell disease, one included children with irritable bowel syndrome, and three studies included children with different chronic pain conditions (i.e. headache, recurrent abdominal pain, musculoskeletal pain). The average age of children receiving treatment was 13.17 years.\nWe judged selection, detection, and reporting biases to be mostly low risk. However, we judged performance and attrition biases to be mostly unclear. Out of the 16 planned analyses, we were able to conduct 13 meta-analyses. We downgraded outcomes for imprecision, indirectness of evidence, inconsistency of results, or because the analysis only included one study.\nHeadache conditions\nFor headache pain conditions, we found headache severity was reduced post-treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 3.01); P < 0.001, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 5.36, 7 studies, 379 participants; very low-quality evidence). No effect was found at follow-up (very low-quality evidence). There were no effects of psychological therapies delivered remotely for disability post-treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.13; P = 0.28, 5 studies, 440 participants) or follow-up (both very low-quality evidence). Similarly, no effect was found for the outcomes of depression (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.23, P = 0.69, 4 studies, 422 participants) or anxiety (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.12; P = 0.45, 3 studies, 380 participants) at post-treatment, or follow-up (both very low-quality evidence).\nMixed chronic pain conditions\nWe did not find any beneficial effects of psychological therapies for reducing pain intensity post-treatment for mixed chronic pain conditions (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.95 to 0.16; P = 0.10, 5 studies, 501 participants) or at follow-up. There were no beneficial effects of psychological therapies delivered remotely for disability post-treatment (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.18; P = 0.24, 3 studies, 363 participants) and a lack of data at follow-up meant no analysis could be run. We found no beneficial effects for the outcomes of depression (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.26; P = 0.73, 2 studies, 317 participants) and anxiety (SMD 0.53, 95% CI -0.63 to 1.68; P = 0.37, 2 studies, 370 participants) post-treatment, however, we are cautious of our findings as we could only include two studies in the analyses. We could not conduct analyses at follow-up. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be very low quality.\nAll conditions\nAcross all chronic pain conditions, six studies reported minor adverse events which were not attributed to the psychological therapies. Satisfaction with treatment is described qualitatively and was overall positive. However, we judged both these outcomes as very low quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are currently a small number of trials investigating psychological therapies delivered remotely, primarily via the Internet. We are cautious in our interpretations of analyses. We found one beneficial effect of therapies to reduce headache severity post-treatment. For the remaining outcomes there was either no beneficial effect at post-treatment or follow-up, or lack of evidence to determine an effect. Overall, participant satisfaction with treatment was positive. We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low, meaning we are very uncertain about the estimate. Further studies are needed to increase our confidence in this potentially promising field.\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": "Experiencing long-term pain during childhood is common. Children and adolescents (< 18 years of age) with long-term pain often report intense pain which negatively impacts their lives. The pain can affect their ability to function physically, can limit their ability to go to school, and can leave them feeling anxious or depressed. The most common types of chronic pain in children and adolescents are headaches, recurrent abdominal pain, musculoskeletal pain, and back pain. Normally, a therapist, physically together with a patient or family (a method often called face-to-face) delivers psychological therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (e.g. coping skills, activity pacing) or behavioural therapy (e.g. relaxation exercises). We know that face-to-face therapies can reduce pain intensity and improve physical functioning in children. Technology (e.g. the Internet, computer programmes, and smartphone applications) now allows therapy to be delivered without needing to be face-to-face with a therapist. Therapies delivered remotely promise to make treatments easier to access because they remove the need for travel. They may also be less expensive.\nWe set out to understand if psychological therapies, delivered remotely using technology, can help children and adolescents with long-term pain to have less pain, to improve physical functioning, and to have fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety, compared to children who are waiting to be treated (waiting-list control), or being treated in other ways (active control, e.g. receiving education about long-term pain)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3425 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA stroke is a sudden loss of brain function caused by lack of blood supply. Stroke can lead to death or physical and cognitive impairment and can have long lasting psychological and social implications. Research shows that stroke survivors and their families are dissatisfied with the information provided and have a poor understanding of stroke and associated issues.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective is to assess the effects of active or passive information provision for stroke survivors (people with a clinical diagnosis of stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA)) or their identified carers. The primary outcomes are knowledge about stroke and stroke services, and anxiety.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the Cochrane Stroke Group Specialised Register on 28 September 2020 and for the following databases to May/June 2019: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR; 2019, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 31 May 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (searched 2005 to May week 4, 2019), Embase Ovid (searched 2005 to 29 May 2019), CINAHL EBSCO (searched 2005 to 6 June 2019), and five others. We searched seven study registers and checked reference lists of reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials involving stroke survivors, their identified carers or both, where an information intervention was compared with standard care, or where information and another therapy were compared with the other therapy alone, or where the comparison was between active and passive information provision without other differences in treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We categorised interventions as either active information provision or passive information provision: active information provision included active participation with subsequent opportunities for clarification and reinforcement; passive information provision provided no systematic follow-up or reinforcement procedure. We stratified analyses by this categorisation. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe have added 12 new studies in this update. This review now includes 33 studies involving 5255 stroke-survivor and 3134 carer participants. Twenty-two trials evaluated active information provision interventions and 11 trials evaluated passive information provision interventions. Most trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors where outcomes were self-reported. Fewer than half of studies were at low risk of bias regarding random sequence generation, concealment of allocation, incomplete outcome data or selective reporting. The following estimates have low certainty, based on the quality of evidence, unless stated otherwise.\nAccounting for certainty and size of effect, analyses suggested that for stroke survivors, active information provision may improve stroke-related knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.65; 3 studies, 275 participants), may reduce cases of anxiety and depression slightly (anxiety risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.06; 5 studies, 1132 participants; depression RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.01; 6 studies, 1315 participants), may reduce Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety score slightly, (mean difference (MD) -0.73, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.36; 6 studies, 1171 participants), probably reduces HADS depression score slightly (MD (rescaled from SMD) -0.8, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.34; 8 studies, 1405 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may improve each domain of the World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment short-form (WHOQOL-BREF) (physical, MD 11.5, 95% CI 7.81 to 15.27; psychological, MD 11.8, 95% CI 7.29 to 16.29; social, MD 5.8, 95% CI 0.84 to 10.84; environment, MD 7.0, 95% CI 3.00 to 10.94; 1 study, 60 participants). No studies evaluated positive mental well-being.\nFor carers, active information provision may reduce HADS anxiety and depression scores slightly (MD for anxiety -0.40, 95% CI -1.51 to 0.70; 3 studies, 921 participants; MD for depression -0.30, 95% CI -1.53 to 0.92; 3 studies, 924 participants), may result in little to no difference in positive mental well-being assessed with Bradley's well-being questionnaire (MD -0.18, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.98; 1 study, 91 participants) and may result in little to no difference in quality of life assessed with a 0 to 100 visual analogue scale (MD 1.22, 95% CI -7.65 to 10.09; 1 study, 91 participants). The evidence is very uncertain (very low certainty) for the effects of active information provision on carers' stroke-related knowledge, and cases of anxiety and depression.\nFor stroke survivors, passive information provision may slightly increase HADS anxiety and depression scores (MD for anxiety 0.67, 95% CI -0.37 to 1.71; MD for depression 0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to 1.38; 3 studies, 227 participants) and the evidence is very uncertain for the effects on stroke-related knowledge, quality of life, and cases of anxiety and depression. For carers, the evidence is very uncertain for the effects of passive information provision on stroke-related knowledge, and HADS anxiety and depression scores. No studies of passive information provision measured carer quality of life, or stroke-survivor or carer positive mental well-being.\nAuthors' conclusions\nActive information provision may improve stroke-survivor knowledge and quality of life, and may reduce anxiety and depression. However, the reductions in anxiety and depression scores were small and may not be important. In contrast, providing information passively may slightly worsen stroke-survivor anxiety and depression scores, although again the importance of this is unclear. Evidence relating to carers and to other outcomes of passive information provision is generally very uncertain. Although the best way to provide information is still unclear, the evidence is better for strategies that actively involve stroke survivors and carers and include planned follow-up for clarification and reinforcement.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for studies in May and June 2019 and searched one source again in September 2020. The studies were published between 1987 and 2019."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3426 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTuberculosis (TB) of the gastrointestinal tract and any other organ within the abdominal cavity is abdominal TB, and most guidelines recommend the same six-month regimen used for pulmonary TB for people with this diagnosis. However, some physicians are concerned whether a six-month treatment regimen is long enough to prevent relapse of the disease, particularly in people with gastrointestinal TB, which may sometimes cause antituberculous drugs to be poorly absorbed. On the other hand, longer regimens are associated with poor adherence, which could increase relapse, contribute to drug resistance developing, and increase costs to patients and health providers.\nObjectives\nTo compare six-month versus longer drug regimens to treat people that have abdominal TB.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases up to 2 September 2016: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase (accessed via OvidSP), LILACS, INDMED, and the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also checked article reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared six-month regimens versus longer regimens that consisted of isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol to treat adults and children that had abdominal TB. The primary outcomes were relapse, with a minimum of six-month follow-up after completion of antituberculous treatment (ATT), and clinical cure at the end of ATT.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. For analysis of dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, we pooled data from the included trials in meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs, with 328 participants, that compared six-month regimens with nine-month regimens to treat adults with intestinal and peritoneal TB. All trials were conducted in Asia, and excluded people with HIV, those with co-morbidities and those who had received ATT in the previous five years. Antituberculous regimens were based on isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol, and these drugs were administered daily or thrice weekly under a directly observed therapy programme. The median duration of follow-up after completion of treatment was between 12 and 39 months.\nRelapse was uncommon, with two cases among 140 participants treated for six months, and no events among 129 participants treated for nine months. The small number of participants means we do not know whether or not there is a difference in risk of relapse between the two regimens (very low quality evidence). At the end of therapy, there was probably no difference in the proportion of participants that achieved clinical cure between six-month and nine-month regimens (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; 294 participants, 3 trials, moderate quality evidence). For death, there were 2/150 (1.3%) in the six-month group and 4/144 (2.8%) in the nine-month group. All deaths occurred in the first four months of treatment, so was not linked to the duration of treatment in the included trials. Similarly, the number of participants that defaulted from treatment was small in both groups, and there may be no difference between them (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.59; 294 participants, 3 trials, low quality evidence). Only one trial reported on adherence to treatment, with only one participant allocated to the nine-month regimen presenting poor adherence to treatment. We do not know whether six-month regimens are associated with fewer people experiencing adverse events that lead to treatment interruption (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.55; 318 participants, 3 trials, very low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence to suggest that six-month treatment regimens are inadequate for treating people that have intestinal and peritoneal TB, but numbers are small. We did not find any incremental benefits of nine-month regimens regarding relapse at the end of follow-up, or clinical cure at the end of therapy, but our confidence in the relapse estimate is very low because of size of the trials. Further research is required to make confident conclusions regarding the safety of six-month treatment for people with abdominal TB. Larger studies that include HIV-positive people, with long follow-up for detecting relapse with reliability, would help improve our knowledge around this therapeutic question.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is abdominal tuberculosis and why is duration of treatment important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Abdominal tuberculosis (TB) is a type of TB that affects the gut, the peritoneum (the lining of the abdominal cavity), abdominal lymph nodes, and, more rarely, the solid organs in the abdomen (liver, pancreas, and spleen). Abdominal TB leads to severe illness in adults and children, and can cause complications, such as bowel rupture, which can lead to death.\nMost current guidelines recommend treating people that have abdominal TB with antituberculous treatment (ATT) for six months, but some clinicians treat for longer periods due to concerns that six months is not adequate to achieve cure and prevent relapse of the disease after the end of treatment. Longer ATT regimens have disadvantages: patients may find it more difficult to adhere to the tablets; patients are exposed to the risk of side effects of ATT for longer periods; and the cost to health systems and to patients is greater."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3427 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPoor interprofessional collaboration (IPC) can adversely affect the delivery of health services and patient care. Interventions that address IPC problems have the potential to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of practice-based interventions designed to improve interprofessional collaboration (IPC) amongst health and social care professionals, compared to usual care or to an alternative intervention, on at least one of the following primary outcomes: patient health outcomes, clinical process or efficiency outcomes or secondary outcomes (collaborative behaviour).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2015, issue 11), MEDLINE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to November 2015. We handsearched relevant interprofessional journals to November 2015, and reviewed the reference lists of the included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials of practice-based IPC interventions involving health and social care professionals compared to usual care or to an alternative intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of each potentially relevant study. We extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias of each study. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis of study outcomes, given the small number of included studies and their heterogeneity in clinical settings, interventions and outcomes. Consequently, we summarised the study data and presented the results in a narrative format to report study methods, outcomes, impact and certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies in total (6540 participants); six cluster-randomised trials and three individual randomised trials (1 study randomised clinicians, 1 randomised patients, and 1 randomised clinicians and patients). All studies were conducted in high-income countries (Australia, Belgium, Sweden, UK and USA) across primary, secondary, tertiary and community care settings and had a follow-up of up to 12 months. Eight studies compared an IPC intervention with usual care and evaluated the effects of different practice-based IPC interventions: externally facilitated interprofessional activities (e.g. team action planning; 4 studies), interprofessional rounds (2 studies), interprofessional meetings (1 study), and interprofessional checklists (1 study). One study compared one type of interprofessional meeting with another type of interprofessional meeting. We assessed four studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and an equal number of studies to be at high risk of detection bias.\nFor studies comparing an IPC intervention with usual care, functional status in stroke patients may be slightly improved by externally facilitated interprofessional activities (1 study, 464 participants, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether patient-assessed quality of care (1 study, 1185 participants), continuity of care (1 study, 464 participants) or collaborative working (4 studies, 1936 participants) are improved by externally facilitated interprofessional activities, as we graded the evidence as very low-certainty for these outcomes. Healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended practices may be slightly improved with externally facilitated interprofessional activities or interprofessional meetings (3 studies, 2576 participants, low certainty evidence). The use of healthcare resources may be slightly improved by externally facilitated interprofessional activities, interprofessional checklists and rounds (4 studies, 1679 participants, low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on patient mortality, morbidity or complication rates.\nCompared to multidisciplinary audio conferencing, multidisciplinary video conferencing may reduce the average length of treatment and may reduce the number of multidisciplinary conferences needed per patient and the patient length of stay. There was little or no difference between these interventions in the number of communications between health professionals (1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven that the certainty of evidence from the included studies was judged to be low to very low, there is not sufficient evidence to draw clear conclusions on the effects of IPC interventions. Neverthess, due to the difficulties health professionals encounter when collaborating in clinical practice, it is encouraging that research on the number of interventions to improve IPC has increased since this review was last updated. While this field is developing, further rigorous, mixed-method studies are required. Future studies should focus on longer acclimatisation periods before evaluating newly implemented IPC interventions, and use longer follow-up to generate a more informed understanding of the effects of IPC on clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The extent to which different health and social care professionals work well together affects the quality of the care that they provide. If there are problems in how these professionals communicate and interact with each other, this can lead to problems in patient care. Interprofessional collaboration practice-based interventions are strategies that are put into place in healthcare settings to improve interactions and work processes between two or more types of healthcare professionals. This review studied different interprofessional collaboration interventions, compared to usual care or an alternative intervention, to see if they improved patient care or collaboration."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3428 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 10, 2014. There is a need to expand monotherapy options available to a clinician for the treatment of new focal or generalized seizures. A Cochrane systematic review for clobazam monotherapy is expected to define its place in the treatment of new-onset or untreated seizures and highlight gaps in evidence.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, tolerability and safety of clobazam as monotherapy in people with new-onset focal or generalized seizures.\nSearch methods\nFor the latest update we searched the following databases on 19 March 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946- ), BIOSIS Previews (1969- ), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing clobazam monotherapy versus placebo or other anti-seizure medication in people with two or more unprovoked seizures or single acute symptomatic seizure requiring short-term continuous anti-seizure medication, were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nPrimary outcome measure was time on allocated treatment (retention time), reflecting both efficacy and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included short- and long-term effectiveness measures, tolerability, quality of life, and tolerance measures. Two authors independently extracted the data.\nMain results\nWe identified three trials fulfilling the review criteria, which included 206 participants. None of the identified studies reported the preselected primary outcome measure. A meta-analysis was not possible. Lack of detail regarding allocation concealment and a high risk of performance and detection bias in two studies prompted us to downgrade the quality of evidence (by using the GRADE approach) for some of our results due to risk of bias.\nRegarding retention at 12 months, we detected no evidence of a statistically significant difference between clobazam and carbamazepine (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence that clobazam led to better retention compared with phenytoin (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.90). We could not determine whether participants receiving clobazam were found to be less likely to discontinue it due to adverse effects as compared to phenytoin (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.65, low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no advantage for clobazam over carbamazepine for retention at 12 months in drug-naive children and a slight advantage of clobazam over phenytoin for retention at six months in adolescents and adults with neurocysticercosis in a single clinical trial each. At present, the available evidence is insufficient 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": "Epilepsy is characterized by an abnormal propensity for the brain to have seizures, which are discrete episodes of abnormal neuronal electrical activity. Seizures may arise from a particular part (focal seizures) or whole of the brain at once (generalized seizures). In this review we assessed clobazam as monotherapy (single-drug treatment) for new-onset or untreated focal or generalized onset seizures."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3429 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise training is commonly recommended for adults with fibromyalgia. We defined flexibility exercise training programs as those involving movements of a joint or a series of joints, through complete range of motion, thus targeting major muscle-tendon units. This review is one of a series of reviews updating the first review published in 2002.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of flexibility exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), Thesis and Dissertation Abstracts, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 2017, unrestricted by language, and we reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized trials (RCTs) including adults diagnosed with fibromyalgia based on published criteria. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, trial withdrawals, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, performed 'Risk of bias' assessments, and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. All discrepancies were rechecked, and consensus was achieved by discussion.\nMain results\nWe included 12 RCTs (743 people). Among these RCTs, flexibility exercise training was compared to an untreated control group, land-based aerobic training, resistance training, or other interventions (i.e. Tai Chi, Pilates, aquatic biodanza, friction massage, medications). Studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection bias (due to lack of adequate randomization and allocation concealment, lack of participant or personnel blinding, and lack of blinding for self-reported outcomes). With the exception of withdrawals and adverse events, major outcomes were self-reported and were expressed on a 0-to-100 scale (lower values are best, negative mean differences (MDs) indicate improvement). We prioritized the findings of flexibility exercise training compared to land-based aerobic training and present them fully here.\nVery low-certainty evidence showed that compared with land-based aerobic training, flexibility exercise training (five trials with 266 participants) provides no clinically important benefits with regard to HRQoL, pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, and physical function. Low-certainty evidence showed no difference between these groups for withdrawals at completion of the intervention (8 to 20 weeks).\nMean HRQoL assessed on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) Total scale (0 to 100, higher scores indicating worse HRQoL) was 46 mm and 42 mm in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (2 studies, 193 participants); absolute change was 4% worse (6% better to 14% worse), and relative change was 7.5% worse (10.5% better to 25.5% worse) in the flexibility group. Mean pain was 57 mm and 52 mm in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (5 studies, 266 participants); absolute change was 5% worse (1% better to 11% worse), and relative change was 6.7% worse (2% better to 15.4% worse). Mean fatigue was 67 mm and 71 mm in the aerobic and flexibility groups, respectively (2 studies, 75 participants); absolute change was 4% better (13% better to 5% worse), and relative change was 6% better (19.4% better to 7.4% worse). Mean physical function was 23 points and 17 points in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (1 study, 60 participants); absolute change was 6% worse (4% better to 16% worse), and relative change was 14% worse (9.1% better to 37.1% worse). We found very low-certainty evidence of an effect for stiffness. Mean stiffness was 49 mm to 79 mm in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (1 study, 15 participants); absolute change was 30% better (8% better to 51% better), and relative change was 39% better (10% better to 68% better). We found no evidence of an effect in all-cause withdrawal between the flexibility and aerobic groups (5 studies, 301 participants). Absolute change was 1% fewer withdrawals in the flexibility group (8% fewer to 21% more), and relative change in the flexibility group compared to the aerobic training intervention group was 3% fewer (39% fewer to 55% more). It is uncertain whether flexibility leads to long-term effects (36 weeks after a 12-week intervention), as the evidence was of low certainty and was derived from a single trial.\nVery low-certainty evidence indicates uncertainty in the risk of adverse events for flexibility exercise training. One adverse effect was described among the 132 participants allocated to flexibility training. One participant had tendinitis of the Achilles tendon (McCain 1988), but it is unclear if the tendinitis was a pre-existing condition.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared with aerobic training, it is uncertain whether flexibility improves outcomes such as HRQoL, pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, and physical function, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Flexibility exercise training may lead to little or no difference for all-cause withdrawals. It is also uncertain whether flexibility exercise training has long-term effects due to the very low certainty of the evidence. We downgraded the evidence owing to the small number of trials and participants across trials, as well as due to issues related to unclear and high risk of bias (selection, performance, and detection biases). While flexibility exercise training appears to be well tolerated (similar withdrawal rates across groups), evidence on adverse events was scarce, therefore its safety is uncertain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Pain intensity\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "People who received flexibility exercise training were 5% worse (ranging from 1% better to 11% worse).\n• People who had flexibility training rated their pain as 57 points.\n• People who had aerobic training rated their pain as 52 points."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3430 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAntihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent progression to more severe disease, and thereby improve pregnancy outcome. This Cochrane Review is an updated review, first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2007 and 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatments for women with mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 September 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy, defined as systolic blood pressure 140 to 169 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90 to 109 mmHg. Comparisons were of one or more antihypertensive drug(s) with placebo, with no antihypertensive drug, or with another antihypertensive drug, and where treatment was planned to continue for at least seven days.\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\nFor this update, we included 63 trials (data from 58 trials, 5909 women), with moderate to high risk of bias overall.\nWe carried out GRADE assessments for the main 'antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug' comparison only. Evidence was graded from very low to moderate certainty, with downgrading mainly due to design limitations and imprecision.For many outcomes, trials contributing data evaluated different hypertensive drugs; while we did not downgrade for this indirectness, results should be interpreted with caution.\nAntihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug (31 trials, 3485 women)\nPrimary outcomes: moderate-certainty evidence suggests that use of antihypertensive drug(s) probably halves the risk of developing severe hypertension (risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.60; 20 trials, 2558 women), but may have little or no effect on the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.14; 23 trials, 2851 women; low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence also shows that antihypertensive drug(s) probably have little or no effect in the risk of total reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) (aRR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.04; 29 trials, 3365 women), small-for-gestational-age babies (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18; 21 trials, 2686 babies) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; 15 trials, 2141 women).\nSecondary outcomes: we are uncertain of the effect of antihypertensive drug(s) on the risk of maternal death, severe pre-eclampsia, or eclampsia, orimpaired long-term growth and development of the baby in infancy and childhood, because the certainty of this evidence is very low. There may be little or no effect on the risk of changed/stopped drugs due to maternal side-effects, or admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery (low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of elective delivery (moderate-certainty evidence).\nAntihypertensive drug versus another antihypertensive drug (29 trials, 2774 women)\nPrimary outcomes: beta blockers and calcium channel blockers together in the meta-analysis appear to be more effective than methyldopa in avoiding an episode of severe hypertension (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88; 11 trials, 638 women). There was also an increase in this risk when other antihypertensive drugs were compared with calcium channel blockers (RR 1.86; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.15; 5 trials, 223 women), but no evidence of a difference when methyldopa and calcium channel blockers together were compared with beta blockers (RR1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.48; 10 trials, 692 women). No evidence of a difference in the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia was found when alternative drugs were compared with methyldopa (aRR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06; 11 trials, 997 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR: 1.24, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.19; 5 trials, 375 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.67; 12 trials, 1107 women).\nFor the babies, we found no evidence of a difference in the risk oftotal reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) when comparing other antihypertensive drugs with methyldopa (aRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.14; 22 trials, 1791 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.57; nine trials, 700 babies), or with beta blockers (aRR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.88; 19 trials, 1652 babies); nor in the risk for small-for-gestational age in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.20; seven trials, 597 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.73; four trials, 200 babies), or with beta blockers (average RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.60; 7 trials, 680 babies). No evidence of an overall difference among groups in the risk of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) was found in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.22; 11 trials, 835 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.23; six trials, 330 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.66; 9 trials, 806 women).\nSecondary outcomes: There were no cases of maternal death andeclampsia. There is no evidence of a difference in the risk of severe pre-eclampsia, changed/stopped drug due to maternal side-effects, elective delivery, admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery when other antihypertensive drugs are compared with methyldopa, calcium channel blockers or beta blockers. Impaired long-term growth and development in infancy and childhood was not reported for these comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAntihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy reduces the risk of severe hypertension. The effect on other clinically important outcomes remains unclear. If antihypertensive drugs are used, beta blockers and calcium channel blockers appear to be more effective than the alternatives for preventing severe hypertension. High-quality large sample-sized randomised controlled trials are required in order to provide reliable estimates of the benefits and adverse effects of antihypertensive treatment for mild to moderate hypertension for both mother and baby, as well as costs to the health services, women and their families.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This Cochrane Review is an update of a review that was first published in 2001 and updated in 2007 and 2014. We searched for randomised controlled trials in September 2017, and this review now includes data from 58 trials involving more than 5900 women. A total of 31 trials with 3485 women compared a number of different blood pressure-lowering drugs to a placebo or no treatment. There were a further 29 trials involving 2774 women which compared one blood pressure-lowering drug with another one.\nThe evidence showed that treating pregnant women who had moderately raised blood pressure with blood pressure-lowering drugs probably halved the number of the women developing severe high blood pressure (20 trials, 2558 women). However, blood pressure-lowering drugs probably had little or no effect on the risk of the baby dying (29 trials, 3365 women), and there is insufficient data on maternal deaths to make a judgement on whether this risk is lowered (five trials, 525 women).\nThe use of blood pressure-lowering drugs may have little or no effect on the number of the women developing pre-eclampsia (23 trials, 2851 women), or the number of women who had to change drugs because of side-effects (16 trials, 1503 women).\nWe found no difference in the number of babies born preterm, that is before 37 weeks (15 trials, 2141 women). There was also no difference in the number of babies born small for their gestational age (21 trials, 2686 babies).\nThe quality of the evidence was mostly moderate (but for pre-eclampsia it was low). This was due to a number of small studies, and problems with the way the studies were undertaken.\nThe available evidence is still insufficient to demonstrate if there is any antihypertensive drug that is better than another. However, beta blockers and calcium channel blockers seem to be better than the alternative drugs for blood pressure control."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3431 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAirway infection leads to progressive damage of the lungs in cystic fibrosis (CF) and oxidative stress has been implicated in the etiology. Supplementation of antioxidant micronutrients (vitamin E, vitamin C, beta-carotene and selenium) or N-acetylcysteine (NAC) as a source of glutathione, may therefore potentially help maintain an oxidant-antioxidant balance. Glutathione or NAC can also be inhaled and if administered in this way can also have a mucolytic effect besides the antioxidant effect. Current literature suggests a relationship between oxidative status and lung function. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo synthesise existing knowledge on the effect of antioxidants such as vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, selenium and glutathione (or NAC as precursor of glutathione) on lung function through inflammatory and oxidative stress markers in people with CF.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and PubMed were searched using detailed search strategies. We contacted authors of included studies and checked reference lists of these studies for additional, potentially relevant studies. We also searched online trials registries.\nLast search of Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 08 January 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing antioxidants as listed above (individually or in combination) in more than a single administration to placebo or standard care in people with CF.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted study investigators to obtain missing information. If meta-analysed, studies were subgrouped according to supplement, method of administration and the duration of supplementation. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nOne quasi-randomised and 19 randomised controlled studies (924 children and adults) were included; 16 studies (n = 639) analysed oral antioxidant supplementation and four analysed inhaled supplements (n = 285). Only one of the 20 included studies was judged to be free of bias.\nOral supplements versus control\nThe change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted at three months and six months was only reported for the comparison of NAC to control. Four studies (125 participants) reported at three months; we are uncertain whether NAC improved FEV1 % predicted as the quality of the evidence was very low, mean difference (MD) 2.83% (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.16 to 7.83). However, at six months two studies (109 participants) showed that NAC probably increased FEV1 % predicted from baseline (moderate-quality evidence), MD 4.38% (95% CI 0.89 to 7.87). A study of a combined vitamin and selenium supplement (46 participants) reported a greater change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted in the control group at two months, MD -4.30% (95% CI -5.64 to -2.96). One study (61 participants) found that NAC probably makes little or no difference in the change from baseline in quality of life (QoL) at six months (moderate-quality evidence), standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47), but the two-month combined vitamin and selenium study reported a small difference in QoL in favour of the control group, SMD -0.66 (95% CI -1.26 to -0.07). The NAC study reported on the change from baseline in body mass index (BMI) (62 participants) and similarly found that NAC probably made no difference between groups (moderate-quality evidence). One study (69 participants) found that a mixed vitamin and mineral supplement may lead to a slightly lower risk of pulmonary exacerbation at six months than a multivitamin supplement (low-quality evidence). Nine studies (366 participants) provided information on adverse events, but did not find any clear and consistent evidence of differences between treatment or control groups with the quality of the evidence ranging from low to moderate. Studies of β-carotene and vitamin E consistently reported greater plasma levels of the respective antioxidants.\nInhaled supplements versus control\nTwo studies (258 participants) showed inhaled glutathione probably improves FEV1 % predicted at three months, MD 3.50% (95% CI 1.38 to 5.62), but not at six months compared to placebo, MD 2.30% (95% CI -0.12 to 4.71) (moderate-quality evidence). The same studies additionally reported an improvement in FEV1 L in the treated group compared to placebo at both three and six months. One study (153 participants) reported inhaled glutathione probably made little or no difference to the change in QoL from baseline, MD 0.80 (95% CI -1.63 to 3.23) (moderate-quality evidence). No study reported on the change from baseline in BMI at six months, but one study (16 participants) reported at two months and a further study (105 participants) at 12 months; neither study found any difference at either time point. One study (153 participants) reported no difference in the time to the first pulmonary exacerbation at six months. Two studies (223 participants) reported treatment may make little or no difference in adverse events (low-quality evidence), a further study (153 participants) reported that the number of serious adverse events were similar across groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWith regards to micronutrients, there does not appear to be a positive treatment effect of antioxidant micronutrients on clinical end-points; however, oral supplementation with glutathione showed some benefit to lung function and nutritional status. Based on the available evidence, inhaled and oral glutathione appear to improve lung function, while oral administration decreases oxidative stress; however, due to the very intensive antibiotic treatment and other concurrent treatments that people with CF take, the beneficial effect of antioxidants remains difficult to assess in those with chronic infection without a very large population sample and a long-term study period. Further studies, especially in very young children, using outcome measures such as lung clearance index and the bronchiectasis scores derived from chest scans, with improved focus on study design variables (such as dose levels and timing), and elucidating clear biological pathways by which oxidative stress is involved in CF, are necessary before a firm conclusion regarding effects of antioxidants supplementation can be drawn. The benefit of antioxidants in people with CF who receive CFTR modulators therapies should also be assessed in the future.\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": "Evidence ranged from very low to moderate quality. All but one study had some bias; mostly because data were not fully reported (likely to affect our results). We were also largely unsure if participants knew which treatment they received, both in advance and once the studies started (unsure how this might affect our results)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3432 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for persisting pain in children acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. Views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important. In the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, and it was assumed that children quickly forgot about painful experiences.\nWe designed a suite of seven reviews in chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) to review the evidence for children's pain using pharmacological interventions.\nAs one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity for children and adolescents in the world today, childhood cancer (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Specific mortality and morbidity data relating to children are not currently identified. All childhood cancer rates are on the rise; for example, in the USA approximately 10,380 children aged under 15 years were expected to be diagnosed with cancer by the end of 2016. However, with survival rates also increasing, over 80% of paediatric cancer patients are expected to survive for five years or more, thus identifying the need to address pain management in this population.\nCancer pain in infants, children, and adolescents is primarily nociceptive pain with negative long term effects. Cancer-related pain is generally caused directly by the tumour itself such as compressing on the nerve or inflammation of the organs. Cancer-related pain generally occurs as a result of perioperative procedures, nerve damage caused by radiation or chemotherapy treatments, or mucositis. However, this review focused on pain caused directly by the tumour itself such as nerve infiltration, external nerve compression, and other inflammatory events.\nNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat pain, reduce fever, and for their anti-inflammatory properties. They are commonly used within paediatric pain management. NSAIDs are currently licensed for use in western countries, however not approved for infants aged under three months. Primary adverse effects include gastrointestinal issues and possible renal impairment with long term use. Other adverse effects in children include diarrhoea, headache, nausea, constipation, rash, dizziness, and abdominal pain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents aged from birth and 17 years, in any setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 21 February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, double-blind trials of any dose, and any route, treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents, comparing NSAIDs with placebo or an active comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We planned to assess GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nNo studies were eligible for inclusion in this review.\nThere is no evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs for treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We planned to rate the quality of the evidence from studies using four levels: very low, low, moderate, or high. Very low quality evidence means that we are very uncertain about the results. High quality evidence means that we are very confident in the results.\nWe were unable to rate the quality of the evidence as there was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the suggestion that NSAIDs in any dose will reduce chronic cancer-related pain in children or adolescents."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3433 | [
{
"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: \"How up-to-date is the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for studies published up to January 2015."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3434 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nResearch suggests that the number of intellectually disabled people with children is increasing. Intellectual disabilities do not inevitably cause parenting difficulties, but it may impact on an individual's capacity to parent a child effectively. Children of parents with intellectual disabilities may be at increased risk of neglectful care, which could lead to health, developmental and behavioural problems, or increased risk of intellectual disability. Compared with other parents, those with intellectual disabilities are more likely to be involved in care proceedings.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disabilities designed to support parenting, parent-child relations, safe parenting or family environments, or to develop parenting skills.\nSearch methods\nIn July 2017, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and six other databases as well as two trials registers. We also searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field to identify additional ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disabilities with treatment as usual or a control group.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standardised Cochrane methods.\nMain results\nAs of July 2017, we identified four trials with 192 participants that met the review inclusion criteria. Participating parents were mostly mothers (seven fathers were included in two studies), and children's ages ranged from one month to six years and five months.\nOne study was conducted in Australia, one in Canada, one in the Netherlands, and one in the USA. Each studied a different intervention and considered different outcomes. Three interventions were delivered at home, and one in a community venue (e.g. a church). Interventions varied in duration from seven weeks to 12 months. They included a range of practical childcare skills, home safety and developing parents' ability to respond sensitively to their children. Parents in the comparison groups included in the review received treatment as usual and most of these received the index intervention after the study was complete.\nOne study was funded by the Ontario Mental Health Foundation and the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services Research Grants Program; one by the Alabama Development Disabilities Council; one by the Best Practice Parenting Education Initiative of the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services and the New South Wales Aging and Disability Department; and one by ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.\nIt was not possible for us to conduct a meta-analysis. The GRADE quality assessment varied from very low to moderate across the studies.\nPrimary outcomes\nNo study reported on the 'attainment of specific parenting skill targets'.\n'Safe home practices' and 'understanding of child health': one study (30 parents, very low-quality evidence) reported some improvements in parents' knowledge of life-threatening emergencies, ability to recognise dangers, and identify precautions, in favour of the intervention group. It also found limited, very low-quality evidence that parent training improved parents' ability to understand child health, implement precautions, use medicines safely, recognise child illness and symptoms, and seek medical advice (i.e. visit the doctor). Another study (22 mothers, very low-quality evidence) reported improved attainment of skills related to childcare and safety, in favour of the intervention group.\nSecondary outcomes\n'Parent-child interaction': one study (40 mothers, very low-quality evidence) reported improved maternal-child interaction following parent training at 12 months follow-up. Another study (83 mothers, 2 fathers, moderate-quality evidence) reported that inclusion in the intervention group led to a steeper decline in parenting stress related to the child compared to the control group.\n'Parents' retention of child': one study (22 participants; very low-quality evidence) reported that before joining the programme nine of 11 (82%) families with a previous child had had the child removed from their care by child protection authorities due to maternal maltreatment, compared with only four of 22 (19%) families after participating in the programme (only one of these four mothers had also had a previous child removed).\nNo study reported data on: 'return to independent care of child' or 'lifting of child-related court order'.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is some very low-quality evidence that some parents, mainly mothers, with intellectual disabilities are able to provide adequate parenting if they are given appropriate training and support to learn the parenting skills they need. However, there are few studies exploring how interventions might work, for whom and in what circumstances. In particular, there have been few studies that include fathers with intellectual disabilities, or that explore the views of parents themselves.\nThere is a need for larger RCTs of parenting interventions, with longer follow-up, before conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of parent training for this group of parents.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Do parent training interventions help parents with intellectual disabilities to parent adequately?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3435 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFractures of the distal femur (the far end of the thigh bone just above the knee) are a considerable cause of morbidity. Various different surgical and non-surgical treatments have been used in the management of these injuries but the best treatment remains unknown.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in adults comparing interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur. Interventions included surgical implants (retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN), fixed-angle devices, non-locking plate fixation, locking plate, internal fixation, distal femoral replacement, mono-axial plates, poly-axial plates and condylar buttress plates) and non-surgical management.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our critical outcomes were validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), direct adverse events, participant-reported quality of life (QoL) and pain scores. Our other important outcomes were adverse events indirectly related to intervention, symptomatic non-union, malunion and resource use. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies with 753 participants: 13 studies compared different surgical interventions, and one study compared surgical with non-surgical management. Here, we report the effects for RIMN compared with locking plates. Three studies (221 participants) reported this comparison; it included the largest study population and these are the two most commonly used devices in contemporary orthopaedic trauma practice.\nStudies used three different tools to assess PROMs. We found very-low certainty evidence for lower Disability Rating Index scores after RIMN at short-term follow-up favouring RIMN (mean difference (MD) −21.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) −38.16 to −5.64; 1 study, 12 participants) and low-certainty evidence of little or no difference at long-term follow-up (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.22, 95% CI −0.50 to 0.06; 2 studies, 198 participants). Re-expressing the SMD of the long-term follow-up data to Knee Society Score (KSS) used by one study found no clinical benefit of RIMN, based on a minimal clinically important difference of 9 points (MD 2.47, 95% CI −6.18 to 0.74). The effect on QoL was very uncertain at four months (MD 0.01, 95% CI −0.42 to 0.44; 1 study, 14 participants) and one year (MD 0.10, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.21; 1 study, 156 participants); this evidence was very low certainty.\nFor direct adverse events, studies reported reoperation, loss of fixation, superficial and deep infection, haematoma formation and implant loosening. Effects for all events were imprecise with the possibility of benefit or harm for both treatments. We considered reoperation the most clinically relevant. There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in reoperation between the two implants (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.00; 1 study, 104 participants).\nNo studies reported pain.\nFor other important outcomes, we noted that people treated with RIMN may be more likely to have varus/valgus deformity (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.37; 1 study, 33 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we found no evidence of any important differences between treatments in terms of bony union, indirect adverse events, or resource use.\nOther comparisons of surgical interventions included in the review were: RIMN versus single fixed-angle device (3 studies, 175 participants); RIMN versus non-locking plate fixation (1 study, 18 participants); locking plate versus single fixed-angle device (2 studies, 130 participants); internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement (1 study, 23 participants); mono-axial plates versus poly-axial plates (2 studies, 67 participants); mono-axial plate versus condylar buttress plate (1 study, 78 participants). The certainty of the evidence for outcomes in these comparisons was low to very low, and most effect estimates were imprecise.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review highlights the major limitations of the available evidence concerning current treatment interventions for fractures of the distal femur. The currently available evidence is incomplete and insufficient to inform clinical practice. Priority should be given to randomised controlled trials comparing contemporary treatments for people with fractures of the distal femur. At a minimum, these should report validated patient-reported functional and quality-of-life outcomes at one and two years, with an agreed core outcome set. All trials should be reported in full using the CONSORT guidelines.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Rods within thigh bone versus a plate that does not lock (one study, 18 participants)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "we found no evidence of any differences in complications between these two methods. We did not have any data for QoL or pain."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3436 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major public health issue because it causes chronic pain, reduces physical function and diminishes quality of life. Ageing of the population and increased global prevalence of obesity are anticipated to dramatically increase the prevalence of knee OA and its associated impairments. No cure for knee OA is known, but exercise therapy is among the dominant non-pharmacological interventions recommended by international guidelines.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether land-based therapeutic exercise is beneficial for people with knee OA in terms of reduced joint pain or improved physical function and quality of life.\nSearch methods\nFive electronic databases were searched, up until May 2013.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomly assigning individuals and comparing groups treated with some form of land-based therapeutic exercise (as opposed to exercise conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group or a non-treatment control group.\nData collection and analysis\nThree teams of two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each study and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We conducted analyses on continuous outcomes (pain, physical function and quality of life) immediately after treatment and on dichotomous outcomes (proportion of study withdrawals) at the end of the study; we also conducted analyses on the sustained effects of exercise on pain and function (two to six months, and longer than six months).\nMain results\nIn total, we extracted data from 54 studies. Overall, 19 (20%) studies reported adequate random sequence generation and allocation concealment and adequately accounted for incomplete outcome data; we considered these studies to have an overall low risk of bias. Studies were largely free from selection bias, but research results may be vulnerable to performance and detection bias, as only four of the RCTs reported blinding of participants to treatment allocation, and, although most RCTs reported blinded outcome assessment, pain, physical function and quality of life were participant self-reported.\nHigh-quality evidence from 44 trials (3537 participants) indicates that exercise reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.59) immediately after treatment. Pain was estimated at 44 points on a 0 to 100-point scale (0 indicated no pain) in the control group; exercise reduced pain by an equivalent of 12 points (95% CI 10 to 15 points). Moderate-quality evidence from 44 trials (3913 participants) showed that exercise improved physical function (SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.64) immediately after treatment. Physical function was estimated at 38 points on a 0 to 100-point scale (0 indicated no loss of physical function) in the control group; exercise improved physical function by an equivalent of 10 points (95% CI 8 to 13 points). High-quality evidence from 13 studies (1073 participants) revealed that exercise improved quality of life (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.40) immediately after treatment. Quality of life was estimated at 43 points on a 0 to 100-point scale (100 indicated best quality of life) in the control group; exercise improved quality of life by an equivalent of 4 points (95% CI 2 to 5 points).\nHigh-quality evidence from 45 studies (4607 participants) showed a comparable likelihood of withdrawal from exercise allocation (event rate 14%) compared with the control group (event rate 15%), and this difference was not significant: odds ratio (OR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.15). Eight studies reported adverse events, all of which were related to increased knee or low back pain attributed to the exercise intervention provided. No study reported a serious adverse event.\nIn addition, 12 included studies provided two to six-month post-treatment sustainability data on 1468 participants for knee pain and on 1279 (10 studies) participants for physical function. These studies indicated sustainability of treatment effect for pain (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.14), with an equivalent reduction of 6 (3 to 9) points on 0 to 100-point scale, and of physical function (SMD -0.15 95% CI -0.26 to -0.04), with an equivalent improvement of 3 (1 to 5) points on 0 to 100-point scale.\nMarked variability was noted across included studies among participants recruited, symptom duration, exercise interventions assessed and important aspects of study methodology. Individually delivered programmes tended to result in greater reductions in pain and improvements in physical function, compared to class-based exercise programmes or home-based programmes; however between-study heterogeneity was marked within the individually provided treatment delivery subgroup.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigh-quality evidence indicates that land-based therapeutic exercise provides short-term benefit that is sustained for at least two to six months after cessation of formal treatment in terms of reduced knee pain, and moderate-quality evidence shows improvement in physical function among people with knee OA. The magnitude of the treatment effect would be considered moderate (immediate) to small (two to six months) but comparable with estimates reported for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Confidence intervals around demonstrated pooled results for pain reduction and improvement in physical function do not exclude a minimal clinically important treatment effect. Since the participants in most trials were aware of their treatment, this may have contributed to their improvement. Despite the lack of blinding we did not downgrade the quality of evidence for risk of performance or detection bias. This reflects our belief that further research in this area is unlikely to change the findings of our review.\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": "Pain on a scale of 0 to 100 points (lower scores mean reduced pain).\n• People who completed an exercise programme rated their pain at 12 (10 to 15) points lower at end of treatment (12% absolute improvement) compared with people who did not exercise.\n• People who completed an exercise programme rated their pain at 32 points.\n• People who did not exercise rated their pain at 44 points.\nPhysical function on a scale of 0 to 100 points (lower score means better physical function).\n• People who completed an exercise programme rated their physical function at 10 points (8 to 13 points) lower at end of treatment (10% absolute improvement) compared with people who did not exercise.\n• People who completed an exercise programme rated their physical function at 28 points.\n• People who did not exercise rated their physical function at 38 points.\nQuality of life on a scale of 0 to 100 points (higher score means better quality of life).\n• Overall, people who completed an exercise programme rated their quality of life at 4 points (2 to 5 points) higher at the end of treatment (4% absolute improvement).\n• People who completed an exercise programme rated their quality of life at 47 points.\n• People who did not exercise rated their quality of life at 43 points.\nWithdrawals.\n• One fewer persons out of 100 dropped out of the exercise programme (1% absolute decrease).\n• Out of 100 people in exercise programmes, 14 dropped out.\n• Out of 100 people who did not exercise, 15 dropped out."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 3437 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBiocompatible peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions, including neutral pH, low glucose degradation product (GDP) solutions and icodextrin, have previously been shown to favourably influence some patient-level outcomes, albeit based on generally sub-optimal quality studies. Several additional randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating biocompatible solutions in PD patients have been published recently. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of biocompatible PD solutions in comparison to standard PD solutions in patients receiving PD.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register was searched up to 12 February 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nAll RCTs and quasi-RCTs in adults and children comparing the effects of biocompatible PD solutions (neutral pH, lactate-buffered, low GDP; neutral pH, bicarbonate(± lactate)-buffered, low GDP; glucose polymer (icodextrin)) in PD were included. Studies of amino acid-based solutions were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors extracted data on study quality and outcomes. Summary effect estimates were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical variables, and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous variables.\nMain results\nThis review update included 42 eligible studies (3262 participants), including six new studies (543 participants). Overall, 29 studies (1971 participants) compared neutral pH, low GDP PD solution with conventional PD solution, and 13 studies (1291 participants) compared icodextrin with conventional PD solution. Risk of bias was assessed as high for sequence generation in three studies, allocation concealment in three studies, attrition bias in 21 studies, and selective outcome reporting bias in 16 studies.\nNeutral pH, low GDP versus conventional glucose PD solution\nUse of neutral pH, low GDP PD solutions improved residual renal function (RRF) preservation (15 studies, 835 participants: SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.33; high certainty evidence). This approximated to a mean difference in glomerular filtration rate of 0.54 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.93). Better preservation of RRF was evident at all follow-up durations with progressively greater preservation observed with increasing follow up duration. Neutral pH, low GDP PD solution use also improved residual urine volume preservation (11 studies, 791 participants: MD 114.37 mL/day, 95% CI 47.09 to 181.65; high certainty evidence). In low certainty evidence, neutral pH, low GDP solutions may make little or no difference to 4-hour peritoneal ultrafiltration (9 studies, 414 participants: SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.10) which approximated to a mean difference in peritoneal ultrafiltration of 69.72 mL (16.60 to 122.00 mL) lower, and may increase dialysate:plasma creatinine ratio (10 studies, 746 participants: MD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03), technique failure or death compared with conventional PD solutions. It is uncertain whether neutral pH, low GDP PD solution use led to any differences in peritonitis occurrence, hospitalisation, adverse events (6 studies, 519 participants) or inflow pain (1 study, 58 participants: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.08).\nGlucose polymer (icodextrin) versus conventional glucose PD solution\nIn moderate certainty evidence, icodextrin probably reduced episodes of uncontrolled fluid overload (2 studies, 100 participants: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.59) and augmented peritoneal ultrafiltration (4 studies, 102 participants: MD 448.54 mL/d, 95% CI 289.28 to 607.80) without compromising RRF (4 studies, 114 participants: SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.49; low certainty evidence) which approximated to a mean creatinine clearance of 0.30 mL/min/1.73m2 higher (0.65 lower to 1.23 higher) or urine output (3 studies, 69 participants: MD -88.88 mL/d, 95% CI -356.88 to 179.12; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether icodextrin use led to any differences in adverse events (5 studies, 816 participants) technique failure or death.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated review strengthens evidence that neutral pH, low GDP PD solution improves RRF and urine volume preservation with high certainty. These effects may be related to increased peritoneal solute transport and reduced peritoneal ultrafiltration, although the evidence for these outcomes is of low certainty due to significant heterogeneity and suboptimal methodological quality. Icodextrin prescription increased peritoneal ultrafiltration and mitigated uncontrolled fluid overload with moderate certainty. The effects of either neutral pH, low GDP solution or icodextrin on peritonitis, technique survival and patient survival remain uncertain and require further high quality, adequately powered RCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified 42 studies (3262 participants) examining the effects of these solutions on patient outcomes. When compared to conventional peritoneal dialysis solutions, we found that neutral pH, low glucose breakdown product peritoneal dialysis solutions resulted in better preservation of a patient's own kidney function including urine output. Patients who received non-glucose based (icodextrin) peritoneal dialysis solutions achieved greater fluid removal with their dialysis and were 70% less likely to experience uncontrolled episodes of fluid overload. No significant harms were identified with any of the biocompatible peritoneal dialysis solutions. Many of the studies were limited by small size, short follow-up duration, suboptimal methodological quality, and inconsistent reporting of outcomes. Consequently, the effects of biocompatible peritoneal dialysis solutions on the length of time that a patient is able to either remain on peritoneal dialysis or stay alive are uncertain."
}
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.