dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum | 4146 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIrreversible pulpitis, which is characterised by acute and intense pain, is one of the most frequent reasons that patients attend for emergency dental care. Apart from removal of the tooth, the customary way of relieving the pain of irreversible pulpitis is by drilling into the tooth, removing the inflamed pulp (nerve) and cleaning the root canal. However, a significant number of dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics to stop the pain of irreversible pulpitis.This review updates the previous version published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 18 February 2019); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 18 February 2019); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 18 February 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 18 February 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 18 February 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 18 February 2019). There were no language restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials which compared pain relief with systemic antibiotics and analgesics, against placebo and analgesics in the acute preoperative phase of irreversible pulpitis.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors screened studies and extracted data independently. We assessed the certainty of the evidence of included studies using GRADE. Pooling of data was not possible and a descriptive summary is presented.\nMain results\nNo additional trials could be included in this update. One trial at low risk of bias evaluating oral penicillin in combination with analgesics versus placebo with analgesics, involving 40 participants was included in a former update of the review. The certainty of the evidence was rated low for the different outcomes. Our primary outcome was patient-reported pain (intensity/duration) and pain relief. There was a close parallel distribution of the pain ratings in both the intervention (median 6.0, interquartile range (IQR) 10.5), and for placebo (median 6.0, IQR 9.5) over the seven-day study period. There was insufficient evidence to claim or refute a benefit for penicillin for pain intensity. There was no significant difference in the mean total number of ibuprofen tablets over the study period: 9.20 (standard deviation (SD) 6.02) in the penicillin group versus 9.60 (SD 6.34) in the placebo group; mean difference -0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.23 to 3.43; P = 0.84). This applied equally for the mean total number of Tylenol tablets: 6.90 (SD 6.87) used in the penicillin group versus 4.45 (SD 4.82) in the placebo group; mean difference 2.45 (95% CI -1.23 to 6.13; P = 0.19). Our secondary outcome on reporting of adverse events was not addressed in this study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis Cochrane Review which was based on one low-powered small sample trial assessed as at low risk of bias, illustrates that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether antibiotics reduce pain or not compared to not having antibiotics. The results of this review confirm the necessity for further larger sample and methodologically sound trials that can provide additional evidence as to whether antibiotics, prescribed in the preoperative phase, can affect treatment outcomes for irreversible pulpitis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Are oral antibiotics effective and safe for treating pain in irreversible pulpitis (inflammation of the nerve inside the tooth/nerve damage)?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4147 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nImmune checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly important in the treatment algorithm for locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. Numerous ongoing studies are investigating these agents as first- and second-line therapies, both alone and in combination with chemotherapy or in a maintenance therapy setting.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to chemotherapy as first- and second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, several trial registers, other sources of gray literature, and conference proceedings, with no restrictions on language of publication. We limited the search period to run from 2000 until August 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using immunotherapy versus chemotherapy and would have considered non-randomized trials in the absence of randomized trial data. Participants had locally advanced inoperable (cT4b or N+, or both) or metastatic (M1) (or both) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder or upper urinary tract. We excluded studies of people in whom immunotherapy was used in combination with chemotherapy or in a surveillance setting.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently classified studies for inclusion and abstracted data from included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence on a per-outcome basis.\nMain results\nWe included five RCTs and identified seven single-armed studies. The RCTs included 3572 participants comparing immunotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer.\nFirst-line therapy\nImmunotherapy probably has little to no effect on the risk of death from any cause when used as first-line therapy compared to chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 2068 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 750 deaths per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 11 fewer (45 fewer to 26 more) deaths per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy probably has little to no effect on health-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) 4.10, 95% CI 3.83 to 4.37; 1 study, 393 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), when assuming a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least 6 points (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Bladder [FACT-BL] tool; scale 0 to 156 with higher scores representing better quality of life). Immunotherapy probably reduces adverse events grade 3 to 5 (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.75; I2 = 97%; 3 studies, 2046 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 908 grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy, with 481 fewer (644 fewer to 227 fewer) grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy.\nWe found no evidence for the outcome time to death from bladder cancer. Immunotherapy probably increases the risk of time to disease progression (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 1349 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 660 events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 102 more (57 more to 152 more) events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy may reduce discontinuations due to adverse effects (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.10; I2 = 94%; 3 studies, 2046 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 338 discontinuations per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 179 fewer (271 fewer to 34 more) discontinuations per 1000 participants with immunotherapy.\nSecond-line therapy\nImmunotherapy may reduce the risk of death from any cause when used as second-line therapy (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 920 deaths per 1000 participants with chemotherapy (vinflunine, paclitaxel, docetaxel) and 59 fewer (95 fewer to 28 fewer) deaths per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life when compared to chemotherapy (MD 4.82, 95% CI -3.11 to 12.75; I2 = 85%; 2 studies, 727 participants; low-certainty evidence), assuming an MCID of at least 10 points (using the EORTC QLQ tool; scale 0 to 100 with higher scores representing better quality of life). Immunotherapy may reduce adverse events grade 3 to 5 in participants undergoing second-line therapy (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; I2 = 9%; 2 studies, 1423 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 630 grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 76 fewer (126 fewer to 25 fewer) grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy.\nWe found no evidence for the outcome of time to death from bladder cancer. We are very uncertain if immunotherapy reduces the risk of disease progression (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Immunotherapy may reduce discontinuations due to adverse events in participants undergoing second-line therapy (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.72; I2 = 69%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 110 discontinuations per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 72 fewer (91 fewer to 31 fewer) discontinuations per 1000 participants with immunotherapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to chemotherapy, immunotherapy for treating advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma probably has little to no effect on the risk of death from any cause when used as first-line therapy. Still, it may reduce the risk of death from any cause when used as second-line therapy. Health-related quality of life for participants receiving first- and second-line therapy does not appear to be affected by immunotherapy. Immunotherapy probably reduces or may reduce adverse events grade 3 to 5 when used as first- and second-line therapy, respectively.\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 considered non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials (in which people are assigned to a group by chance) in this Cochrane Review, as some of the approvals by responsible authorities are based on non-randomized trials. We only included randomized controlled trials in our analyses."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4148 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA significant proportion of children have caries requiring restorations or extractions, and some of these children will not accept this treatment under local anaesthetic. Historically this has been managed by the use of a general anaesthetic in children; however, use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review was to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia (GA) for provision of dental treatment to children and adolescents younger than 18 years. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2015.\nObjectives\nWe will evaluate morbidity and effectiveness of sedation versus GA for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years. If data become available, we will analyse the cost-effectiveness of different interventions. If data are not available, we will obtain crude estimates of cost.\nMorbidity can be defined as 'an undesired result or complication'. For the purposes of this review, 'postoperative morbidity' refers to undesired results or complications such as nausea following a procedure, once the patient had been restored to consciousness and could breathe unaided. 'Intraoperative morbidity' refers to any complications that occur during the procedure that may necessitate action by the anaesthetist or the sedationist, such as respiratory arrest.\nSearch methods\nIn this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid SP (1950 to July 2015); EMBASE Ovid SP (1974 to July 2015); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October July 2012); Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to July 2015); and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1945 to July 2015).\nWe also carried out handsearching of relevant journals to July 2015. We imposed no language restriction.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomized controlled clinical trials that compared sedative agents versus general anaesthesia in children and adolescents up to 18 years of age undergoing dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to objectives and outcome measures by using a specially designed 'data extraction form'. We will employ the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach to interpret findings.\nMain results\nIn our original review, we identified 16 studies for potential inclusion after searching available databases and screening titles and abstracts. After retrieving full-text studies, we found none to be eligible. We identified no additional studies in the updated search of July 2012. We identified two studies for possible inclusion in the updated search of July 2015; again we found these to be ineligible.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRandomized controlled studies comparing use of dental general anaesthesia versus sedation are needed to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost.\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": "For our original review, we searched the databases until October 2008. For this updated review, we searched the following databases to July 2015: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and ISI Web of Science."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4149 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMaintaining long-term vascular access patency is necessary for high quality haemodialysis (HD) treatment of patients with the terminal and most serious stage of chronic kidney disease (CKD) - end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Oral supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids (ω-3FA) may help to prevent blockage of the vascular access by reducing the risk of thrombosis and stenosis.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of ω-3FA supplementation versus placebo or no treatment for maintaining vascular access patency in ESKD patients undergoing HD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 23 July 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of omega-3 fatty acids versus placebo that assessed the patency of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG) types of vascular access in ESKD patients.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed the risk of bias of each eligible study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and made separate overall risk of bias judgments for the efficacy and safety outcomes. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. The primary efficacy outcome was loss of vascular patency and the primary safety outcomes were occurrences of serious adverse events (e.g. death, hospitalisation, cardiovascular events, major bleeding). Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of non-serious adverse events (e.g. minor bleeding, gastrointestinal events and other adverse events). Efficacy effects were reported as risk ratios (RR) and safety effects as risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Studies were pooled separately by type of vascular access using a random-effects model.\nMain results\nFive studies (833 participants) were included; one was a very small pilot study of 7 participants. All studies compared oral ω-3FA supplements against placebo. Four studies enrolled participants with arteriovenous grafts (AVGs), and the other had participants with arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs). The risk of bias for both efficacy and safety outcomes was unclear for all studies, due mainly to incomplete reporting for allocation concealment and incompleteness of study follow-up.\nIn AVF patients, ω-3FA supplementation probably makes little or no difference to the 12-month risk of patency loss (1 study, 536 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence), risk of death (1 study, 567 participants: RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; moderate certainty evidence) and risk of hospitalisation (1 study, 567 participants: RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.08; low certainty evidence). There was no information on cardiovascular events and major bleeding.\nIn AVG patients, it is very uncertain whether ω-3FA supplementation reduces the risk of patency loss within 6 months (2 studies, 41 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.28; very low certainty evidence) or 12 months (2 studies, 220 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.31; very low certainty evidence). ω-3FA supplementation may make little or no difference to the risk of death within 6 to 12 months in AVG patients (4 studies, 261 participants: RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.07; low certainty evidence). It is very uncertain if ω-3FA supplementation increases the risk of hospitalisation (3 studies, 65 participants: RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.28; very low certainty evidence), changes the risk of cardiovascular events (4 studies, 261 participants: RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07; very low certainty evidence), or increases the risk of major bleeding (3 studies, 65 participants: RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.28; very low certainty evidence) within 6 to 12 months in AVG patients. There may be an increase in the risk of mild gastrointestinal adverse reactions (3 studies, 65 participants: RD 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.43; low certainty evidence) such as a sensation of bloatedness, gas or a fishy aftertaste.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn CKD patients with an AVF, there is moderate certainty that ω-3FA supplementation makes little or no difference to preventing patency loss; and in patients with an AVG, it is very uncertain that ω-3FA supplementation prevents patency loss within 12 months.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is limited high quality data on the benefits of omega-3 fish oil supplementation for preventing HD blockage in kidney failure patients. We did not find strong evidence that omega-3 fish oil supplements could prevent blockage of HD vascular access or that it increases the risk of serious and non-serious side-effects. All the evidence for preventing blockages come from just one or two studies, so more and better quality studies are needed."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4150 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFasting during Ramadan is obligatory for adult Muslims, except those who have a medical illness. Many Muslims with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) choose to fast, which may increase their risks of hypoglycaemia and dehydration.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment.\nFour trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nOne trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nThree trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nOne trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no clear evidence of the benefits or harms of interventions for individuals with T2DM who fast during Ramadan. All results should be interpreted with caution due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies, which give rise to low- to very low-certainty evidence. Major outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life and severe hypoglycaemia, were rarely evaluated. Sufficiently powered studies that examine the effects of various interventions on these outcomes are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Fasting during Ramadan is one of the pillars of Islam's core beliefs and practices. During this period, all healthy Muslim adults will fast from dawn to dusk (sunset) and take meals after sunset or Iftar. People who are ill or have medical conditions such as type 2 diabetes are exempted from fasting. However, many individuals with type 2 diabetes choose to fast during Ramadan, which can have a major impact on managing diabetes in the Muslim population. Due to the metabolic nature of the condition, people with diabetes are at particular risk of complications from marked changes in food and liquid intake, including the risk of hypoglycaemia.\nWe wanted to find out the effects of interventions used to support fasting in adults with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan. We were specifically interested in the effects on hypoglycaemia (both non-serious and serious), quality of life and unwanted events. We included studies on adults with type 2 diabetes, and our search date was 29 June 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4151 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAllopurinol, a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, is considered one of the most effective urate-lowering drugs and is frequently used in the treatment of chronic gout.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of allopurinol compared with placebo and other urate-lowering therapies for treating chronic gout.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE on 14 January 2014. We also handsearched the 2011 to 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) abstracts, trial registers and regulatory agency drug safety databases.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared allopurinol with a placebo or an active therapy in adults with chronic gout.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted and analysed data using standard methods for Cochrane reviews. The major outcomes of interest were frequency of acute gout attacks, serum urate normalisation, pain, function, tophus regression, study participant withdrawal due to adverse events (AE) and serious adverse events (SAE). We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for these outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 11 trials (4531 participants) that compared allopurinol (various doses) with placebo (two trials); febuxostat (four trials); benzbromarone (two trials); colchicine (one trial); probenecid (one trial); continuous versus intermittent allopurinol (one trial) and different doses of allopurinol (one trial). Only one trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. We deemed allopurinol versus placebo the main comparison, and allopurinol versus febuxostat and versus benzbromarone as the most clinically relevant active comparisons and restricted reporting to these comparisons here.\nModerate-quality evidence from one trial (57 participants) indicated allopurinol 300 mg daily probably does not reduce the rate of gout attacks (2/26 with allopurinol versus 3/25 with placebo; risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 3.52) but increases the proportion of participants achieving a target serum urate over 30 days (25/26 with allopurinol versus 0/25 with placebo, RR 49.11, 95% CI 3.15 to 765.58; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 1). In two studies (453 participants), there was no significant increase in withdrawals due to AE (6% with allopurinol versus 4% with placebo, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.08) or SAE (2% with allopurinol versus 1% with placebo, RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 7.80). One trial reported no difference in pain reduction or tophus regression, but did not report outcome data or measures of variance sufficiently and we could not calculate the differences between groups. Neither trial reported function.\nLow-quality evidence from three trials (1136 participants) indicated there may be no difference in the incidence of acute gout attacks with allopurinol up to 300 mg daily versus febuxostat 80 mg daily over eight to 24 weeks (21% with allopurinol versus 23% with febuxostat, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.1); however more participants may achieve target serum urate level (four trials; 2618 participants) with febuxostat 80 mg daily versus allopurinol 300 mg daily (38% with allopurinol versus 70% with febuxostat, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB with febuxostat 4). Two trials reported no difference in tophus regression between allopurinol and febuxostat over a 28- to 52-week period; but as the trialists did not provide variance, we could not calculate the mean difference between groups. The trials did not report pain reduction or function. Moderate-quality evidence from pooled data from three trials (2555 participants) comparing allopurinol up to 300 mg daily versus febuxostat 80 mg daily indicated no difference in the number of withdrawals due to AE (7% with allopurinol versus 8% with febuxostat, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.26) or SAE (4% with allopurinol versus 4% with febuxostat, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.82) over a 24- to 52-week period.\nLow-quality evidence from one trial (65 participants) indicated there may be no difference in the incidence of acute gout attacks with allopurinol up to 600 mg daily compared with benzbromarone up to 200 mg daily over a four-month period (0/30 with allopurinol versus 1/25 with benzbromarone, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.58). Based on the pooled results of two trials (102 participants), there was moderate-quality evidence of no probable difference in the proportion of participants achieving a target serum urate level with allopurinol versus benzbromarone (58% with allopurinol versus 74% with benzbromarone, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11). Low-quality evidence from two studies indicated there may be no difference in the number of participants who withdrew due to AE with allopurinol versus benzbromarone over a four- to nine-month period (6% with allopurinol versus 7% with benzbromarone, pooled RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.58). There were no SAEs. They did not report tophi regression, pain and function.\nAll other comparisons were supported by small, single studies only, limiting conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review found low- to moderate-quality evidence indicating similar effects on withdrawals due to AEs and SAEs and incidence of acute gout attacks when allopurinol (100 to 600 mg daily) was compared with placebo, benzbromarone (100 to 200 mg daily) or febuxostat (80 mg daily). There was moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in the proportion of participants achieving target serum urate when allopurinol was compared with benzbromarone. However, allopurinol seemed more successful than placebo and may be less successful than febuxostat (80 mg daily) in achieving a target serum urate level (6 mg/dL or less; 0.36 mmol/L or less) based on moderate- to low-quality evidence. Single studies reported no difference in pain reduction when allopurinol (300 mg daily) was compared with placebo over 10 days, and no difference in tophus regression when allopurinol (200 to 300 mg daily) was compared with febuxostat (80 mg daily). None of the trials reported on function, health-related quality of life or participant global assessment of treatment success, where further research would be useful.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Research question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This summary of a Cochrane review presents what we know from research about the effect of allopurinol compared with placebo or other treatments that reduce uric acid levels in treating people with chronic gout. The review is current to January 2014."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4152 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOvarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods.\nObjectives\nTo establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) from June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately.\nMain results\nWe included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Five studies evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2), four studies evaluated the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); 19 studies evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and 42 studies evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Mean prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX.\nThe higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies.\nIn premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%).\nIn postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is improving the diagnosis of ovarian cancer important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Many women diagnosed with ovarian cancer (OC) die from the disease, because it has usually spread outside the tubes/ovaries at the time of diagnosis. Missing OC (a false-negative result) may need major surgery and a lower chance of survival. An incorrect diagnosis of OC (a false-positive result) may result in anxiety, unnecessary further tests and surgery."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4153 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPostoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous diclofenac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Register of Studies Online), MEDLINE, and Embase on 22 May 2018. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous diclofenac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data.\nOur primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period.\nOur secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, AEs, and for any cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related AEs. We performed a post hoc analysis of opioid-related AEs, to enable indirect comparisons with other analyses of postoperative analgesics.\nFor subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses and formulations of parenteral diclofenac separately.\nWe assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies, involving 1756 participants undergoing various surgeries (dental, mixed minor, abdominal, and orthopedic), with 20 to 175 participants receiving intravenous diclofenac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 24.5 years to 54.5 years. Intravenous diclofenac doses varied among and within studies, ranging from 3.75 mg to 75 mg. Five studies assessed newer formulations of parenteral diclofenac that could be administered as an undiluted intravenous bolus. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for several domains and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was generally low for reasons including unclear risk of bias in studies, imprecision, and low event numbers.\nPrimary outcome\nThree studies (277 participants) produced a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for at least 50% of maximum pain relief versus placebo of 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 3.1) over four hours (low-quality evidence). Four studies (436 participants) produced an NNTB of 3.8 versus placebo (95% CI 2.9 to 5.9) over six hours (low-quality evidence). No studies provided data for the comparison of intravenous diclofenac with another NSAID over four hours. At six hours there was no difference between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (low-quality evidence).\nSecondary outcomes\nFor secondary efficacy outcomes, intravenous diclofenac was generally superior to placebo and similar to other NSAIDs.\nFor time to rescue medication, comparison of intravenous diclofenac versus placebo demonstrated a median of 226 minutes for diclofenac versus 80 minutes for placebo (5 studies, 542 participants, low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data for pooled analysis for comparisons of diclofenac with another NSAID (very low-quality evidence).\nFor the number of participants using rescue medication, two studies (235 participants) compared diclofenac with placebo. The number needed to treat to prevent one additional harmful event (NNTp) (here, the need for rescue medication) compared with placebo was 3.0 (2.2 to 4.5, low-quality evidence). The comparison of diclofenac with another NSAID included only one study (98 participants). The NNTp was 4.5 (2.5 to 33) for ketorolac versus diclofenac (very low-quality evidence).\nThe numbers of participants withdrawing were generally low and inconsistently reported (very low-quality evidence). Participant withdrawals were: 6% (8/140) diclofenac versus 5% (7/128) placebo, and 9% (8/87) diclofenac versus 7% (6/82) another NSAID for lack of efficacy; 2% (4/211) diclofenac versus 0% (0/198) placebo, and 3% (4/138) diclofenac versus 2% (2/129) another NSAID due to AEs; and 11% (21/191) diclofenac versus 17% (30/179) placebo, and 18% (21/118) diclofenac versus 15% (17/111) another NSAID for any cause.\nOverall adverse event rates were similar between intravenous diclofenac and placebo (71% in both groups, 2 studies, 296 participants) and between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (55% and 58%, respectively, 2 studies, 265 participants) (low-quality evidence for both comparisons). Serious and specific AEs were rare, preventing meta-analysis.\nThere were sufficient data for a dose-effect analysis for our primary outcome for only one alternative dose, 18.75 mg. Analysis of the highest dose employed in each study demonstrated a relative benefit compared with placebo of 1.9 (1.4 to 2.4), whereas for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit versus placebo was 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1, 2 studies). Compared to another NSAID, the high-dose analysis demonstrated a relative benefit of 0.9 (0.8 to 1.1), for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit was 0.78 (0.65 to 0.93). For direct comparison of high dose versus 18.75 mg, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 66% (90/137) for the high-dose arm versus 57% (77/135) in the low-dose arm. There were insufficient data for subgroup meta-analysis of different diclofenac formulations.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe amount and quality of evidence for the use of intravenous diclofenac as a treatment for postoperative pain is low. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous diclofenac administration offers good pain relief for the majority of patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a similar rate to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous diclofenac has a different rate of bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was insufficient information to evaluate the efficacy and safety of newer versus traditional formulations of intravenous diclofenac. There was a lack of studies in major and cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations, which may be at increased risk for adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We were most interested in determining the number of participants with at least half the maximum possible pain relief over four or six hours after treatment. Around twice as many participants had at least half the maximum possible pain relief when they received diclofenac versus those who received placebo. When diclofenac was compared with another NSAID, similar numbers of participants had at least half the maximum possible pain relief. Other assessments, such as how quickly and how many participants needed rescue medication (an extra pain medication available to study participants if the study medication is not treating the participant's pain well enough), and how many participants withdrew from a study, also usually showed that intravenous diclofenac was better than placebo and similar to other NSAIDs.\nThere was insufficient information in the studies to make a good assessment of side effects and serious side effects, but the rate at which they occurred appeared to be similar among all treatments. Very few participants dropped out of the studies because of side effects. This is usually the case in studies where patients are only in a study for a short period of time."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4154 | [
{
"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: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the literature up to December 2017 and found 12 studies (743 individuals) that met our inclusion criteria. Flexibility interventions were compared with control (treatment as usual), aerobic training interventions (e.g. treadmill walking), resistance-training interventions (e.g. using weight machines that provide resistance to movement), and other interventions (e.g. Pilates). The average age of participants was 48.6 years. Trials were conducted in seven countries, and most studies (58.3%) included only female participants. Exercise trials ranged from 4 to 20 weeks. The stretching exercise programs ranged from 40 to 60 minutes, 1 to 3 times a day. The intensity of the stretches (e.g. how far the stretch was taken in the available range of motion) was not reported in most cases. The time each stretch was held ranged from 6 to 60 seconds. The targeted muscles were usually of both the upper and lower extremities, neck, and back. The flexibility training was either supervised or done at home. Our main comparison was flexibility exercise versus land-based aerobic training."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4155 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRaised intraocular pressure is a risk factor for glaucoma. One treatment option is glaucoma drainage surgery (trabeculectomy). Antimetabolites are used during surgery to reduce postoperative scarring during wound healing. Two agents in common use are mitomycin C (MMC) and 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of MMC compared to 5-FU as an antimetabolite adjunct in trabeculectomy surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to October 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 October 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials where wound healing had been modified with MMC compared to 5-FU.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials and collected data. The primary outcome was failure of a functioning trabeculectomy one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included mean intraocular pressure at one year. We considered three subgroups: high risk of trabeculectomy failure (people with previous glaucoma surgery, extracapsular cataract surgery, African origin and people with secondary glaucoma or congenital glaucoma); medium risk of trabeculectomy failure (people undergoing trabeculectomy with extracapsular cataract surgery) and low risk of trabeculectomy failure (people who have received no previous surgical eye intervention).\nMain results\nWe identified 11 trials that enrolled 687 eyes of 679 participants. The studies were conducted in the United States, Europe, Asia and Africa. Five studies enrolled participants at low risk of trabeculectomy failure, five studies enrolled participants at high risk of failure, and one study enrolled people with both high and low risk of failure. None of the included trials enrolled participants with combined trabeculectomy/cataract surgery.\nWe considered one study to be at low risk of bias in all domains, six studies to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains, and the remaining four studies to be at an unclear risk of bias in all domains.\nThe risk of failure of trabeculectomy at one year after surgery was less in those participants who received MMC compared to those who received 5-FU, however the confidence intervals were wide and are compatible with no effect (risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 1.00; studies = 11; I2 = 40%). There was no evidence for any difference between groups at high and low risk of failure (test for subgroup differences P = 0.69).\nOn average, people treated with MMC had lower intraocular pressure at one year (mean difference (MD) -3.05 mmHg, 95% CI -4.60 to -1.50), but the studies were inconsistent (I2 = 52%). The size of the effect was greater in the high-risk group (MD -4.18 mmHg, 95% CI -6.73 to -1.64) compared to the low-risk group (MD -1.72 mmHg, 95% CI -3.28 to -0.16), but again the test for interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.11).\nSimilar proportions of eyes treated with MMC lost 2 or more lines of visual acuity one year after surgery compared to 5-FU, but the confidence intervals were wide (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.06).\nAdverse events occurred relatively rarely, and estimates of effect were generally imprecise. There was some evidence for less epitheliopathy in the MMC group (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47) and less hyphaema in the MMC group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.91).\nNone of the studies reported quality of life.\nOverall, we graded the quality of the evidence as low largely because of risk of bias in the included studies and imprecision in the estimate of effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low-quality evidence that MMC may be more effective in achieving long-term lower intraocular pressure than 5-FU. Further comparative research on MMC and 5-FU is needed to enhance reliability and validity of the results shown in this review. Furthermore, the development of new agents that control postoperative scar tissue formation without side effects would be valuable and is justified by the results of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 11 randomised controlled trials conducted in the United States, Europe, Asia and Africa in this review. In total, 687 eyes of 679 participants underwent routine trabeculectomy for glaucoma control. Some participants were at a higher risk of failure than others, for example if they had had previous glaucoma surgery, were of African origin, or if they had secondary glaucoma. Five studies enrolled participants at low risk of trabeculectomy failure, five studies enrolled participants at high risk of failure, and one study enrolled people with both high and low risk of failure. None of the included trials enrolled participants with combined trabeculectomy/cataract surgery."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4156 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHyperbilirubinaemia occurs in approximately two-thirds of all newborns during the first days of life and is frequently treated with phototherapy. Although generally seen as safe, there is rising concern regarding phototherapy and its potentially damaging effects on DNA and increased side effects particularly for preterm infants. Other methods, such as enteral feeding supplementation with prebiotics, may have an effective use in the management of hyperbilirubinaemia in neonates.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether administration of prebiotics reduces the incidence of hyperbilirubinaemia among term and preterm infants compared with enteral supplementation of milk with distilled water/placebo or no supplementation.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 14 June 2018), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 14 June 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all RCTs that studied neonates comparing enteral feeding supplementation with prebiotics versus distilled water/placebo or no supplementation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers screened papers and extracted data from selected papers. We used a fixed-effect method in combining the effects of studies that were sufficiently similar. We then used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nThree small studies evaluating 154 infants were included in this review. One study reported a significant reduction in the risk of hyperbilirubinaemia and rate of treatment with phototherapy associated with enteral supplementation with prebiotics (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.58 to 0.97; one study, 50 infants; low-quality evidence). Meta-analyses of two studies showed no significant difference in maximum plasma unconjugated bilirubin levels in infants with prebiotic supplementation (mean difference (MD) 0.14 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.91 to 1.20, I² = 81%, P = 0.79; two studies, 78 infants; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a significant difference in duration of phototherapy between the prebiotic and control groups, which was only reported by one study (MD 0.10 days, 95% CI -2.00 to 2.20; one study, 50 infants; low-quality evidence). The meta-analyses of two studies demonstrated a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay (MD -10.57 days, 95% CI -17.81 to -3.33; 2 studies, 78 infants; I² = 0%, P = 0.004; low-quality evidence). Meta-analysis of the three studies showed a significant increase in stool frequency in the prebiotic groups (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.46, I² = 90%; 3 studies, 154 infants; high-quality evidence). No significant difference in mortality during hospital stay after enteral supplementation with prebiotics was reported (typical RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.19; I² = 6%, P = 0.95; 2 studies; 78 infants; low-quality evidence). There were no reports of the need for exchange transfusion and incidence of acute bilirubin encephalopathy, chronic bilirubin encephalopathy, and major neurodevelopmental disability in the included studies. None of the included studies reported any side effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent studies are unable to provide reliable evidence about the effectiveness of prebiotics on hyperbilirubinaemia. Additional large, well-designed RCTs should be undertaken in neonates that compare effects of enteral supplementation with prebiotics on neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia with supplementation of milk with any other placebo (particularly distilled water) or no supplementation.\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 prebiotics prevent hyperbilirubinaemia, an elevated level of bilirubin that leads to jaundice, in newborn infants?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4157 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLower limb peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a type of cardiovascular disease where the blood vessels that carry the blood to the legs are hardened and narrowed. The most severe manifestation of PAD is critical limb ischaemia (CLI). This condition results in symptoms of intractable rest pain, non-healing wounds and ulceration, gangrene or both. PAD affects more than 200 million people worldwide and approximately 3% to 5% of people aged over 40 have PAD, rising to 18% in people over 70 years of age. Between 5% to 10% of symptomatic PAD patients will progress to CLI over a five-year period and the five year cumulative incidence rate for asymptomatic patients with PAD deteriorating to intermittent claudication is 7%, with 21% of these progressing to CLI. Treatment options include angioplasty, bypass or amputation of the limb, when life or limb is threatened. People with CLI have a high risk of mortality and morbidity. The mortality rates during a surgical admission are approximately 5%. Within one year of surgery, the mortality rate rises to 22%. Postoperative complications are as high as 30% and readmission rates vary between 7% to 18% in people with CLI.\nDespite recent advances in surgical technology, anaesthesia and perioperative care, a proportion of surgical patients have a suboptimal recovery. Presurgery conditioning (prehabilitation) is a multimodal conditioning intervention carried out prior to surgery using a combination of exercise, with or without nutritional or psychological interventions, or both. The use of prehabilitation is gaining momentum, particularly in elderly patients undergoing surgery and patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery, as a means of optimising fitness to improve the prognosis for people undergoing the physiological stress of surgery. People with PAD are characterised by poor mobility and physical function and have a lower level of fitness as a result of disease progression. Therefore, prehabilitation may be an opportunity to improve their recovery following surgery. However, as multimodal prehabilitation requires considerable resources, it is important to assess whether it is superior to usual care.\nThis review aimed to compare prehabilitation with usual care (defined as a preoperative assessment, including blood and urine tests). The key outcomes were postoperative complications, mortality and readmissions within 30 days of the surgical procedure, and one-year survival rates.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of prehabilitation (preoperative exercise, either alone or in combination with nutritional or psychological interventions, or both) on postoperative outcomes in adults with PAD undergoing open lower limb surgery.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials register to 25 September 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing presurgery interventions and usual care. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, mortality and readmission to hospital within 30 days of the surgical procedure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed all records identified by the searches conducted by the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe found no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no RCTs conducted to determine the effects of prehabilitation on mortality or other postoperative outcomes when compared to usual care for patients with PAD. As a consequence, we were unable to provide any evidence to guide the treatment of patients with PAD undergoing surgery. To perform a randomised controlled trial of presurgery conditioning would be challenging but trials are warranted to provide solid evidence on this topic.\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": "Lower limb peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a type of cardiovascular disease where the blood vessels that carry the blood to the legs are hardened and narrowed. Its most severe state (critical limb ischaemia (CLI)), results in symptoms of pain when resting, non-healing wounds and ulceration, gangrene or both. PAD affects more than 200 million people worldwide and approximately 3% to 5% of people aged above 40 have PAD, rising to 18% in people above 70 years of age. Of those who show symptoms of PAD, between 5% and 10% will progress to CLI over a five-year period. Of those with PAD with no symptoms, 7% will go on to develop symptoms of cramping in the legs when walking and of these patients, 21% will progress to CLI within five years. The treatment options include using a balloon or stent (a device that sits in the artery) to open it up and allow the blood to flow (angioplasty), taking a vein from the opposite leg or arm and attaching it to the artery above and below the blocked artery (bypass), or removal of the limb (amputation), when the life of the patient is at risk due to infection. People with CLI have a high risk of death and worsening health.\nDespite recent advances in surgical technology, anaesthesia, and care during and after surgery, a number of surgical patients have a poor recovery. Presurgery conditioning (prehabilitation) is carried out prior to surgery and includes exercise with a nutritional or psychological intervention or both. Exercise consists of aerobic training, such as walking, running or swimming (ideally three to five times a week) and training to build muscle and strength, using weights or resistance bands (ideally two times a week). The nutritional intervention includes eating or drinking a protein supplement daily, after training or with meals, to improve the effects of any training. Psychological interventions may include breathing exercises, meditation, mindfulness, coping techniques or cognitive behavioural therapy, with an aim to reduce the anxiety of having surgery.\nPresurgery conditioning has become popular in bowel surgery and for elderly patients undergoing an operation. It is used as a means of improving the condition of the patient as a way to reduce complications during and after surgery. People with PAD have difficulty walking and doing their daily living activities and as a result are often very unfit. They therefore have the potential to improve their recovery during and after surgery from presurgery conditioning. However, as presurgery conditioning requires a big commitment from both the hospital and the patient, it is important to know how presurgery conditioning compares to usual practice (preoperative assessment, including blood and urine tests and information about the operation) for reducing the number of deaths or postoperative complications, or both."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4158 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPneumonia in residents of nursing homes can be termed nursing home-acquired pneumonia (NHAP). NHAP is one of the most common infections identified in nursing home residents and has the highest mortality of any infection in this population. NHAP is associated with poor oral hygiene and may be caused by aspiration of oropharyngeal flora into the lung. Oral care measures to remove or disrupt oral plaque might reduce the risk of NHAP. This is the first update of a review published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo assess effects of oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia in residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database and three trials registers up to 12 May 2022. We also used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of oral care measures (brushing, swabbing, denture cleaning mouthrinse, or combination) in residents of any age in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) or incidence rate ratio (IRR) for time-to-event outcomes, using random-effects models.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs (6244 participants), all of which were at high risk of bias. Three studies were carried out in Japan, two in the USA, and one in France. The studies evaluated one comparison: professional oral care versus usual oral care. We did not include the results from one study (834 participants) because it had been stopped at interim analysis.\nConsistent results from five studies, with 5018 participants, provided insufficient evidence of a difference between professional oral care and usual (simple, self-administered) oral care in the incidence of pneumonia. Three studies reported HRs, one reported IRRs, and one reported RRs. Due to the variation in study design and follow-up duration, we decided not to pool the data. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for this outcome by two levels to low: one level for study limitations (high risk of performance bias), and one level for imprecision.\nThere was low-certainty evidence from meta-analysis of two individually randomised studies that professional oral care may reduce the risk of pneumonia-associated mortality compared with usual oral care at 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.76, 454 participants). Another study (2513 participants) reported insufficient evidence of a difference for this outcome at 18 months' follow-up.\nThree studies measured all-cause mortality and identified insufficient evidence of a difference between professional and usual oral care at 12 to 30 months' follow-up.\nOnly one study (834 participants) measured the adverse effects of the interventions. The study identified no serious events and 64 non-serious events, the most common of which were oral cavity disturbances (not defined) and dental staining.\nNo studies evaluated oral care versus no oral care.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough low-certainty evidence suggests that professional oral care may reduce mortality compared to usual care when measured at 24 months, the effect of professional oral care on preventing NHAP remains largely unclear. Low-certainty evidence was inconclusive about the effects of this intervention on incidence and number of first episodes of NHAP. Due to differences in study design, effect measures, follow-up duration, and composition of the interventions, we cannot determine the optimal oral care protocol from current evidence.\nFuture trials will require larger samples, robust methods that ensure low risk of bias, and more practicable interventions for nursing home residents.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found six relevant studies, with a total of 6244 participants, who were randomly assigned to professional or usual oral care. Three studies were carried out in Japan, two in the USA, and one in France. Participants were nursing home residents who did not have pneumonia at the beginning of the studies. Some participants had dementia or systemic diseases such as chronic lung diseases, stroke, or heart failure. Usual care varied but was simple, self-administered care with no help from a dental professional or nursing home staff member trained in oral care. No studies compared oral care to no oral care.\nFrom the limited evidence, we could not determine whether professional mouth care was better or worse than usual oral care for preventing pneumonia, death from pneumonia, or death from any cause. However, two studies suggested that professional mouth care may reduce the number of deaths caused by pneumonia after 24 months of observation.\nOnly one study measured negative side effects of professional oral care, and reported no serious events. The most common non-serious events were damage to the mouth and tooth staining."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4159 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity in preterm infants and inflammation plays a significant role in its pathogenesis. The use of inhaled corticosteroids may modulate the inflammatory process without concomitant high systemic steroid concentrations and less risk of adverse effects. This is an update of a review published in 2012 (Shah 2012). We recently updated the related review on \"Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for treating bronchopulmonary dysplasia in ventilated very low birth weight preterm neonates\".\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids started within the first 7 days of life on preventing death or BPD in ventilated very low birth weight infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 23 February 2017), Embase (1980 to 23 February 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 23 February 2017). We searched clinical trials registers, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled versus systemic corticosteroid therapy (irrespective of dose and duration) starting in the first seven days of life in very low birth weight preterm infants receiving assisted ventilation.\nData collection and analysis\nClinical outcomes data were extracted and analysed using Review Manager. When appropriate, meta-analysis was performed using typical relative risk (RR), typical risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (WMD). Meta-analyses were performed using typical relative risk, typical risk difference (RD), and weighted mean difference with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). If RD was statistically significant, the number needed to benefit or the number needed to harm was calculated. We assessed the quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE principles.\nMain results\nWe included two trials that involved 294 infants. No new studies were included for the 2017 update. The incidence of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age was not statistically significantly different between infants who received inhaled or systemic steroids (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.16; 1 trial, N = 278). The incidence of BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age among survivors was not statistically significant between groups (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.90; RD 0.11, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.24; 1 trial, N = 206). There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of BPD at 28 days, death at 28 days or 36 weeks' postmenstrual age and the combined outcome of death or BPD by 28 days between groups (2 trials, N = 294). The duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly longer in the inhaled steroid group compared with the systemic steroid group (typical MD 4 days, 95% CI 0.2 to 8; 2 trials, N = 294; I² = 0%) as was the duration of supplemental oxygen (typical MD 11 days, 95% CI 2 to 20; 2 trials, N = 294; I² = 33%).\nThe incidence of hyperglycaemia was significantly lower with inhaled steroids (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.71; RD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14; 1 trial, N = 278; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 7 to avoid 1 infant experiencing hyperglycaemia). The rate of patent ductus arteriosus increased in the group receiving inhaled steroids (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.17; RD 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.33; 1 trial, N = 278; NNTH 5, 95% CI 3 to 10). In a subset of surviving infants in the United Kingdom and Ireland there were no significant differences in developmental outcomes at 7 years of age. However, there was a reduced risk of having ever been diagnosed as asthmatic by 7 years of age in the inhaled steroid group compared with the systemic steroid group (N = 48) (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.94; RD -0.31, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.05; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 20).\nAccording to GRADE the quality of the evidence was moderate to low. Evidence was downgraded on the basis of design (risk of bias), consistency (heterogeneity) and precision of the estimates.\nBoth studies received grant support and the industry provided aero chambers and metered dose inhalers of budesonide and placebo for the larger study. No conflict of interest was identified.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence that early inhaled steroids confer important advantages over systemic steroids in the management of ventilator-dependent preterm infants. Based on this review inhaled steroids cannot be recommended over systemic steroids as a part of standard practice for ventilated preterm infants. Because they might have fewer adverse effects than systemic steroids, further randomised controlled trials of inhaled steroids are needed that address risk/benefit ratio of different delivery techniques, dosing schedules and long-term effects, with particular attention to neurodevelopmental outcome.\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": "Preterm babies who require breathing support often develop bronchopulmonary dysplasia. It is thought that inflammation in the lungs may be part of the cause. Corticosteroid drugs when given orally or through a vein reduces this inflammation, but the use of corticosteroids is associated with serious side effects. Corticosteroids use has been associated with cerebral palsy (motor problem) and developmental delay. It is possible that inhaling steroids, so that the drug directly reaches the lung, may reduce the adverse effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4160 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgeons who perform laparotomy have a number of decisions to make regarding abdominal closure. Material and size of potential suture types varies widely. In addition, surgeons can choose to close the incision in anatomic layers or mass ('en masse'), as well as using either a continuous or interrupted suturing technique, of which there are different styles of each. There is ongoing debate as to which suturing techniques and suture materials are best for achieving definitive wound closure while minimising the risk of short- and long-term complications.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of this review were to identify the best available suture techniques and suture materials for closure of the fascia following laparotomy incisions, by assessing the following comparisons: absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures; mass versus layered closure; continuous versus interrupted closure techniques; monofilament versus multifilament sutures; and slow absorbable versus fast absorbable sutures. Our objective was not to determine the single best combination of suture material and techniques, but to compare the individual components of abdominal closure.\nSearch methods\nOn 8 February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two trials registries, and Science Citation Index. There were no limitations based on language or date of publication. We searched the reference lists of all included studies to identify trials that our searches may have missed.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared suture materials or closure techniques, or both, for fascial closure of laparotomy incisions. We excluded trials that compared only types of skin closures, peritoneal closures or use of retention sutures.\nData collection and analysis\nWe abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each trial. We calculated a summary risk ratio (RR) for the outcomes assessed in the review, all of which were dichotomous. We used random-effects modelling, based on the heterogeneity seen throughout the studies and analyses. We completed subgroup analysis planned a priori for each outcome, excluding studies where interventions being compared differed by more than one component, making it impossible to determine which variable impacted on the outcome, or the possibility of a synergistic effect. We completed sensitivity analysis, excluding trials with at least one trait with high risk of bias. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro guidelines.\nMain results\nFifty-five RCTs with a total of 19,174 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in the type of sutures used, methods of closure and patient population. Many of the included studies reported multiple comparisons.\nFor our primary outcome, the proportion of participants who developed incisional hernia at one year or more of follow-up, we did not find evidence that suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.35, very low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, moderate-quality evidence) resulted in a difference in the risk of incisional hernia. We did, however, find evidence to suggest that monofilament sutures reduced the risk of incisional hernia when compared with multifilament sutures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98, I2 = 30%, moderate-quality evidence).\nFor our secondary outcomes, we found that none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound infection, whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.57, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.34, moderate-quality evidence).\nSimilarily, none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound dehiscence whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.10, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.61, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.64, moderate-quality evidence).\nAbsorbable sutures, compared with non-absorbable sutures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) reduced the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation. None of the other comparisons showed a difference (slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.05 to 16.05, very low-quality evidence; mass versus layered, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62, low-quality evidence; continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.61, very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on this moderate-quality body of evidence, monofilament sutures may reduce the risk of incisional hernia. Absorbable sutures may also reduce the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation, but this finding is based on low-quality evidence.\nWe had serious concerns about the design or reporting of several of the 55 included trials. The comparator arms in many trials differed by more than one component, making it impossible to attribute differences between groups to any one component. In addition, the patient population included in many of the studies was very heterogeneous. Trials included both emergency and elective cases, different types of disease pathology (e.g. colon surgery, hepatobiliary surgery, etc.) or different types of incisions (e.g. midline, paramedian, subcostal).\nConsequently, larger, high-quality trials to further address this clinical challenge are warranted. Future studies should ensure that proper randomisation and allocation techniques are performed, wound assessors are blinded, and that the duration of follow-up is adequate. It is important that only one type of intervention is compared between groups. In addition, a homogeneous patient population would allow for a more accurate assessment of the interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"We found\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "A search of all relevant publications (up to date as of 8 February 2017) found a total of 55 studies with 19,174 participants to include in the review. The included studies differed greatly in the type of suture materials used, the closure technique and the type of underlying surgical procedures performed. We found that using monofilament sutures reduced the occurrence of incisional hernia. Absorbable sutures reduced the risk of chronic drainage from the wound (sinus or fistula formation).\nThis review included a notably large number of trials; however, we had concerns regarding their collective methodological design and scientific reporting."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4161 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCarotid artery stenting is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. This review updates a previous version first published in 1997 and subsequently updated in 2004, 2007, and 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and risks of stenting compared with endarterectomy in people with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched August 2018) and the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index to August 2018. We also searched ongoing trials registers (August 2018) and reference lists, and contacted researchers in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stenting with endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. In addition, we included RCTs comparing carotid artery stenting with medical therapy alone.\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. A second review author independently validated trial selection and a third review author independently validated data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with endarterectomy as the reference group. We quantified heterogeneity using the I² statistic and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 22 trials involving 9753 participants. In participants with symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with endarterectomy stenting was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural death or stroke (the primary safety outcome; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.19; P < 0.0001, I² = 5%; 10 trials, 5396 participants; high-certainty evidence); and periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.80; P = 0.002, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 4861 participants; high-certainty evidence). The OR for the primary safety outcome was 1.11 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.64) in participants under 70 years old and 2.23 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.08) in participants 70 years old or more (interaction P = 0.007). There was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or major or disabling stroke with stenting (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.91; P = 0.08, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 4983 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with endarterectomy, stenting was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94; P = 0.03, I² = 0%), cranial nerve palsy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; P < 0.00001, I² = 0%), and access site haematoma (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.68; P = 0.003, I² = 27%).\nThe combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up (the primary combined safety and efficacy outcome) favoured endarterectomy (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.85; P < 0.0001, I² = 0%; 8 trials, 5080 participants; high-certainty evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period did not differ between treatments (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.47; P = 0.77, I² = 0%).\nIn participants with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or stroke with stenting compared with endarterectomy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.97; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 3378 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.84; P = 0.22, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 3315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nModerate or higher carotid artery restenosis (50% or greater) or occlusion during follow-up was more common after stenting (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.60; P = 0.02, I² = 44%), but the difference in risk of severe restenosis was not significant (70% or greater; OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.00; P = 0.33, I² = 58%; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nStenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with a higher risk of periprocedural stroke or death than endarterectomy. This extra risk is mostly attributed to an increase in minor, non-disabling strokes occurring in people older than 70 years. Beyond the periprocedural period, carotid stenting is as effective in preventing recurrent stroke as endarterectomy. However, combining procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke still favours endarterectomy.\nIn people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there may be a small increase in the risk of periprocedural stroke or death with stenting compared with endarterectomy. However, CIs of treatment effects were wide and further data from randomised trials in people with asymptomatic stenosis are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review included 22 studies involving 9753 participants.\nIn people who have already experienced symptoms from a narrowing in the carotid artery, stenting caused more strokes or deaths around the time of the procedure than surgery. This was especially true for people over the age of 70 years. After the initial procedure, both treatments were equally effective in preventing stroke or death in the long term.\nIn people who had never experienced symptoms from the carotid stenosis, both carotid artery stenting and surgery carried a similar risk of stroke or death in the short and long term, although the certainty of the evidence in these people was only moderate and the results should be interpreted with caution."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4162 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIntermittent catheterisation (IC) is a commonly recommended procedure for people with incomplete bladder emptying. Frequent complications are urinary tract infection (UTI), urethral trauma and discomfort during catheter use. Despite the many designs of intermittent catheter, including different lengths, materials and coatings, it is unclear which catheter techniques, strategies or designs affect the incidence of UTI and other complications, measures of satisfaction/quality of life and cost-effectiveness.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of different catheterisation techniques, strategies and catheter designs, and their impact, on UTI and other complications, and measures of satisfaction/quality of life among adults and children whose long-term bladder condition is managed by intermittent catheterisation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 12 April 2021), the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings, and we attempted to contact other investigators for unpublished data or for clarification.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or randomised cross-over trials comparing at least two different catheterisation techniques, strategies or catheter designs.\nData collection and analysis\nAs per standard Cochrane methodological procedures, two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes included the number of people with symptomatic urinary tract infections, complications such as urethral trauma/bleeding, comfort and ease of use of catheters, participant satisfaction and preference, quality of life measures and economic outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 23 trials (1339 randomised participants), including twelve RCTs and eleven cross-over trials. Most were small (fewer than 60 participants completed), although three trials had more than 100 participants. Length of follow-up ranged from one month to 12 months and there was considerable variation in definitions of UTI. Most of the data from cross-over trials were not presented in a useable form for this review.\nRisk of bias was unclear in many domains due to insufficient information in the trial reports and several trials were judged to have a high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding and a high risk of attrition bias. The certainty of evidence was downgraded for risk of bias, and imprecision due to low numbers of participants.\nAseptic versus clean technique\nWe are uncertain if there is any difference between aseptic and clean techniques in the risk of symptomatic UTI because the evidence is low-certainty and the 95% confidence interval (CI) is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 1.20 95% CI 0.54 to 2.66; one study; 36 participants). We identified no data relating to the risk of adverse events comparing aseptic and clean techniques or participant satisfaction or preference.\nSingle-use (sterile) catheter versus multiple-use (clean)\nWe are uncertain if there is any difference between single-use and multiple-use catheters in terms of the risk of symptomatic UTI because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CI is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.55, 1.74; two studies; 97 participants). One study comparing single-use catheters to multiple-use catheters reported zero adverse events in either group; no other adverse event data were reported for this comparison. We identified no data for participant satisfaction or preference.\nHydrophilic-coated catheters versus uncoated catheters\nWe are uncertain if there is any difference between hydrophilic and uncoated catheters in terms of the number of people with symptomatic UTI because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CI is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.14; two studies; 98 participants). Uncoated catheters probably slightly reduce the risk of urethral trauma and bleeding compared to hydrophilic-coated catheters (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if hydrophilic-coated catheters compared with uncoated catheters has any effect on participant satisfaction measured on a 0-10 scale (MD 0.7 higher, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.21; very low-certainty evidence; one study; 114 participants). Due to the paucity of data, we could not assess the certainty of evidence relating to participant preference (one cross-over trial of 29 participants reported greater preference for a hydrophilic-coated catheter (19/29) compared to an uncoated catheter (10/29)).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite a total of 23 trials, the paucity of useable data and uncertainty of the evidence means that it remains unclear whether the incidence of UTI or other complications is affected by use of aseptic or clean technique, single (sterile) or multiple-use (clean) catheters, coated or uncoated catheters or different catheter lengths. The current research evidence is uncertain and design and reporting issues are significant. More well-designed trials are needed. Such trials should include analysis of cost-effectiveness because there are likely to be substantial differences associated with the use of different catheterisation techniques and strategies, and catheter designs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There are different catheterisation techniques, strategies and catheter designs which may affect symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI; a bladder infection detected through urine testing where the person has symptoms of infection), other complications and user preference.\nIn this review, we focussed on these outcomes in people who used aseptic or clean catheterisation techniques, single or multiple-use catheters and different designs of catheter (e.g. coated or uncoated, standard or compact length) to determine if one approach or design is better than another."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4163 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic wounds are common and present a health problem with significant effect on quality of life. Various pathologies may cause tissue breakdown, including poor blood supply resulting in inadequate oxygenation of the wound bed. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested to improve oxygen supply to wounds and therefore improve their healing.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of adjunctive HBOT for treating chronic ulcers of the lower limb.\nSearch methods\nFor this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 February 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 17 February 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 17 February 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 17 February 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 February 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect on chronic wound healing of therapeutic regimens which include HBOT with those that exclude HBOT (with or without sham therapy).\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of the relevant trials using the Cochrane methodology and extracted the data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreement by discussion.\nMain results\nWe included twelve trials (577 participants). Ten trials (531 participants) enrolled people with a diabetic foot ulcer: pooled data of five trials with 205 participants showed an increase in the rate of ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 4.62; P = 0.01) with HBOT at six weeks but this benefit was not evident at longer-term follow-up at one year. There was no statistically significant difference in major amputation rate (pooled data of five trials with 312 participants, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.18). One trial (16 participants) considered venous ulcers and reported data at six weeks (wound size reduction) and 18 weeks (wound size reduction and number of ulcers healed) and suggested a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area only at six weeks (mean difference (MD) 33.00%, 95% CI 18.97 to 47.03, P < 0.00001). We identified one trial (30 participants) which enrolled patients with non-healing diabetic ulcers as well as venous ulcers (\"mixed ulcers types\") and patients were treated for 30 days. For this \"mixed ulcers\" there was a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area at the end of treatment (30 days) (MD 61.88%, 95% CI 41.91 to 81.85, P < 0.00001). We did not identify any trials that considered arterial and pressure ulcers.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people with foot ulcers due to diabetes, HBOT significantly improved the ulcers healed in the short term but not the long term and the trials had various flaws in design and/or reporting that means we are not confident in the results. More trials are needed to properly evaluate HBOT in people with chronic wounds; these trials must be adequately powered and designed to minimise all kinds of bias.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Does hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) increase the rate of healing of people with chronic wounds and reduce the need for partial or total lower limb amputation? Is this treatment safe?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4164 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) can co-occur in up to 40% of people with epilepsy. There is debate about the efficacy and tolerability of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs used to treat people with ADHD and co-occurring epilepsy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs on children and adults with ADHD and co-occurring epilepsy in terms of seizure frequency and drug withdrawal rates (primary objectives), as well as seizure severity, ADHD symptoms, cognitive state, general behaviour, quality of life, and adverse effects profile (secondary objectives).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 12 October 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 9 October 2020), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, 1937 onwards). There were no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs for people of any age, gender or ethnicity with ADHD and co-occurring epilepsy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe selected articles and extracted data according to predefined criteria. We conducted primary analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. We presented outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), except for individual adverse effects where we quoted 99% CIs. We conducted best- and worst-case sensitivity analyses to deal with missing data. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified two studies that matched our inclusion criteria: a USA study compared different doses of the stimulant drug osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) with a placebo in 33 children (mean age 10.5 ± 3.0 years), and an Iranian study compared the non-stimulant drug omega-3 taken in conjunction with risperidone and usual anti-seizure medication (ASM) with risperidone and ASM only in 61 children (mean age 9.24 ± 0.15 years). All children were diagnosed with epilepsy and ADHD according to International League Against Epilepsy and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, criteria, respectively. We assessed both studies to be at low risk of detection and reporting biases, but assessments varied from low to high risk of bias for all other domains.\nOROS-MPH\nNo participant taking OROS-MPH experienced significant worsening of epilepsy, defined as: 1. a doubling of the highest 14-day or highest two-day seizure rate observed during the 12 months before the trial; 2. a generalised tonic-clonic seizure if none had been experienced in the previous two years; or 3. a clinically meaningful intensification in seizure duration or severity (33 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, higher doses of OROS-MPH predicted an increased daily risk of a seizure (P < 0.001; 33 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). OROS-MPH had a larger proportion of participants receiving 'much improved' or 'very much improved' scores for ADHD symptoms on the Clinical Global Impressions for ADHD-Improvement tool (33 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). OROS-MPH also had a larger proportion of people withdrawing from treatment (RR 2.80; 95% CI 1.14 to 6.89; 33 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).\nOmega-3\nOmega-3 with risperidone and ASM were associated with a reduction in mean seizure frequency by 6.6 seizures per month (95% CI 4.24 to 8.96; 56 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the proportion of people achieving 50% or greater reduction in monthly seizure frequency (RR 2.79, 95% CI 0.84 to 9.24; 56 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) compared to people on risperidone and ASM alone. Omega-3 with risperidone and ASM also had a smaller proportion of people withdrawing from treatment (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.59; 61 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) but a larger proportion of people experiencing adverse drug events (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.44 to 4.42; 56 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) compared to people on risperidone and ASM alone.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn children with a dual-diagnosis of epilepsy and ADHD, there is some evidence that use of the stimulant drug OROS-MPH is not associated with significant worsening of epilepsy, but higher doses of it may be associated with increased daily risk of seizures; the evidence is of low-certainty. OROS-MPH is also associated with improvement in ADHD symptoms. However, this treatment was also associated with a large proportion of treatment withdrawal compared to placebo. In relation to the non-stimulant drug omega-3, there is some evidence for reduction in seizure frequency in children who are also on risperidone and ASM, compared to children who are on risperidone and ASM alone. Evidence is inconclusive whether omega-3 increases or decreases the risk of adverse drug events.\nWe identified only two studies – one each for OROS-MPH and omega-3 – with low to high risk of bias. We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for the outcomes of both OROS-MPH and omega-3 as low to moderate.\nMore studies are needed. Future studies should include: 1. adult participants; 2. a wider variety of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs, such as amphetamines and atomoxetine, respectively; and 3. additional important outcomes, such as seizure-related hospitalisations and quality of life. Clusters of studies which assess the same drug – and those that build upon the evidence base presented in this review on OROS-MPH and omega-3 – are needed to allow for meta-analysis of outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to October 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4165 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSchool tobacco policies (STPs) might prove to be a promising strategy to prevent smoking initiation among adolescents, as there is evidence that the school environment can influence young people to smoke. STPs are cheap, relatively easy to implement and have a wide reach, but it is not clear whether this approach is effective in preventing smoking uptake.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of policies aiming to prevent smoking initiation among students by regulating smoking in schools.\nSearch methods\nWe searched seven electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC. We also searched the grey literature and ongoing trials resources. The most recent search was performed in May 2014.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cluster-randomised controlled trials (c-RCTs) in which primary and secondary schools were randomised to receive different levels of smoking policy or no intervention. Non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-after studies would also have been eligible. Cross-sectional studies were not formally included but we describe their findings and use them to generate hypotheses to inform future research.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review, and present a narrative synthesis, as the studies are too limited in quality to undertake a formal meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe found only one study which was eligible for inclusion in the review. It was judged to be at high risk of bias. The study compared two 'middle schools' from two different regions in China. The experimental conditions included the introduction of a tobacco policy, environmental changes, and communication activities, while the control condition was no intervention. After a year's follow-up the study found no differences in smoking prevalence between intervention and control schools. We also described 24 observational studies, the results of which we considered for hypothesis generation. In these, policy exposure was mainly described using face-to-face interviews with school staff members, and the outcome evaluation was performed using self-administered questionnaires. Most studies reported no differences in students' smoking prevalence between schools with formal STPs when compared with schools without policies. In the majority of studies in schools with highly enforced policies, smoking bans extended to outdoor spaces, involving teachers and including sanctions for transgressions, with assistance to quit for smokers plus support by prevention programmes, there was no significant difference in smoking prevalence when compared to schools adopting weaker or no policies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite a comprehensive literature search, and rigorous evaluation of studies, we found no evidence to support STPs. The absence of reliable evidence for the effectiveness of STPs is a concern in public health. We need well-designed randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies to evaluate the effectiveness of school tobacco policies.\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 found no relevant high-quality experimental studies. A great limitation within observational studies is the heterogeneity of exposure definitions. There is large variability in policy formats, which can include several different characteristics, which in turn makes comparison difficult. Only a few studies are based on policy definition in written documents, while in the majority the information was obtained by interviewing school heads, teachers or administrators. With regard to analysis methods, some studies did not mention any adjustment for potential confounders and in the others there was a large variability in the factors considered for adjustment. Studies differed in statistical methods employed to examine the relationship between policy and smoking behaviour."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4166 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOur March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review.\nObjectives\nOur objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals.\nFor all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies.\nImaging in people with suspected COVID-19\nWe included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19.\nFor chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity.\nFor chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64.1 to 80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity.\nFor ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity.\nIndirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P = 0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89).\nImaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive\nFor rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings.\nImaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people\nFor imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7).\nAuthors' conclusions\nChest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.\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 assessed the accuracy of chest imaging to diagnose COVID-19 in people of any age with suspected COVID-19. We included studies with ‘symptomatic' or 'mixed populations'."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4167 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nKeratoconus is a condition of the eye that affects approximately 1 in 2000 people. The disease leads to a gradual increase in corneal curvature and decrease in visual acuity with consequent impact on quality of life. Collagen cross-linking (CXL) with ultraviolet A (UVA) light and riboflavin (vitamin B2) is a relatively new treatment that has been reported to slow or halt the progression of the disease in its early stages.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess whether there is evidence that CXL is an effective and safe treatment for halting the progression of keratoconus compared to no treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to August 2014), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to August 2014), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 August 2014.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where CXL with UVA light and riboflavin was used to treat people with keratoconus and was compared to no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality, and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were two indicators of progression at 12 months: increase in maximum keratometry of 1.5 dioptres (D) or more and deterioration in uncorrected visual acuity of more than 0.2 logMAR.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs conducted in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States that enrolled a total of 225 eyes and analysed 219 eyes. The total number of people enrolled was not clear in two of the studies. Only adults were enrolled into these studies. Out of the eyes analysed, 119 had CXL (all using the epithelium-off technique) and 100 served as controls. One of these studies only reported comparative data on review outcomes. All three studies were at high risk for performance bias (lack of masking), detection bias (only one trial attempted to mask outcome assessment), and attrition bias (incomplete follow-up). It was not possible to pool data due to differences in measuring and reporting outcomes. We identified a further three unpublished trials that potentially had enrolled a total of 195 participants.\nThere was limited evidence on the risk of progression. Analysis of the first few participants followed up to one year in one study suggested that eyes given CXL were less likely to have an increase in maximum keratometry of 1.5 D or more at 12 months compared to eyes given no treatment, but the confidence intervals (CI) were wide and compatible with no effect or more progression in the CXL group (risk ratio (RR) 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.00, 19 eyes). The same study reported the number of eyes with an increase of 2 D or more at 36 months in the whole cohort with a RR of 0.03 favouring CXL (95% CI 0.00 to 0.43, 94 eyes). Another study reported \"progression\" at 18 months using a different definition; people receiving CXL were less likely to progress, but again the effect was uncertain (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.61, 44 eyes). We judged this to be very low-quality evidence due to the risk of bias of included studies, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias but noted that the size of the potential effect was large.\nOn average, treated eyes had a less steep cornea (approximately 2 D less steep) (mean difference (MD) -1.92, 95% CI -2.54 to -1.30, 94 eyes, 1 RCT, very low-quality evidence) and better uncorrected visual acuity (approximately 2 lines or 10 letters better) (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.09, 94 eyes, 1 RCT, very low-quality evidence) at 12 months. None of the studies reported loss of 0.2 logMAR acuity. The data on corneal thickness were inconsistent. There were no data available on quality of life or costs. Adverse effects were not uncommon but mostly transient and of low clinical significance. In one trial, 3 out of 12 participants treated with CXL had an adverse effect including corneal oedema, anterior chamber inflammation, and recurrent corneal erosions. In one trial at 3 years 3 out of 50 participants experienced adverse events including mild diffuse corneal oedema and paracentral infiltrate, peripheral corneal vascularisation, and subepithelial infiltrates and anterior chamber inflammation. No adverse effects were reported in the control groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for the use of CXL in the management of keratoconus is limited due the lack of properly conducted RCTs.\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": "Eyes treated with CXL were less likely to have problems with progression of bulging compared to eyes that were not treated. However, the studies were small and there were some concerns about the way they were done. It is therefore difficult to say exactly how much the treatment helped. None of the studies reported the risk of eyesight getting worse but, on average, treated eyes had better vision (about 10 letters better) compared to untreated eyes. None of the studies reported on a change in quality of life for the participant. The main adverse effects were inflammation and swelling; this occurred in approximately one in 10 participants."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4168 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgery for rotator cuff disease is usually used after non-operative interventions have failed, although our Cochrane Review, first published in 2007, found that there was uncertain clinical benefit following subacromial decompression surgery.\nObjectives\nTo synthesise the available evidence of the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery compared with placebo, no intervention or non-surgical interventions in people with rotator cuff disease (excluding full thickness rotator cuff tears).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry from 2006 until 22 October 2018, unrestricted by language.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with rotator cuff disease (excluding full-thickness tears), that compared subacromial decompression surgery with placebo, no treatment, or any other non-surgical interventions. As it is least prone to bias, subacromial decompression compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Other comparisons were subacromial decompression versus exercises or non-operative treatment. Major outcomes were mean pain scores, shoulder function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year. For serious adverse events, we also included data from prospective cohort studies designed to record harms that evaluated subacromial decompression surgery or shoulder arthroscopy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included eight trials, with a total of 1062 randomised participants with rotator cuff disease, all with subacromial impingement. Two trials (506 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression with arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), with all groups receiving postoperative exercises. These trials included a third treatment group: no treatment (active monitoring) in one and exercises in the other. Six trials (556 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression followed by exercises with exercises alone. Two of these trials included a third arm: sham laser in one and open subacromial decompression in the other.\nTrial size varied from 42 to 313 participants. Participant mean age ranged between 42 and 65 years. Only two trials reported mean symptom duration (18 to 22 months in one trial and 30 to 31 months in the other), two did not report duration and four reported it categorically.\nBoth placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias for the comparison of surgery versus placebo surgery. The other trials were at high risk of bias for several criteria, most notably at risk of performance or detection bias due to lack of participant and personnel blinding. We have restricted the reporting of results of benefits in the Abstract to the placebo-controlled trials.\nCompared with placebo, high-certainty evidence indicates that subacromial decompression provides no improvement in pain, shoulder function, or health-related quality of life up to one year, and probably no improvement in global success (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision).\nAt one year, mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain), was 2.9 points after placebo surgery and 0.26 better (0.84 better to 0.33 worse), after subacromial decompression (284 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (8% better to 3% worse), and relative difference of 4% (12% better to 5% worse). At one year, mean function (on a scale 0 to 100, higher score indicating better outcome), was 69 points after placebo surgery and 2.8 better (1.4 worse to 6.9 better), after surgery (274 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (7% better to 1% worse), and relative difference of 9% (22% better to 4% worse). Global success rate was 97/148 (or 655 per 1000), after placebo and 101/142 (or 708 per 1000) after surgery corresponding to RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). Health-related quality of life was 0.73 units (European Quality of Life EQ-5D, −0.59 to 1, higher score indicating better quality of life), after placebo and 0.03 units worse (0.011 units worse to 0.06 units better), after subacromial decompression (285 participants), an absolute difference of 1.3% (5% worse to 2.5% better), and relative difference of 4% (15% worse to 7% better).\nAdverse events including frozen shoulder or transient minor complications of surgery were reported in approximately 3% of participants across treatment groups in two randomised controlled trials, but due to low event rates we are uncertain if the risks differ between groups: 5/165 (37 per 1000) reported adverse events with subacromial decompression and 9/241 (34 per 1000) with placebo or non-operative treatment, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.65) (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). The trials did not report serious adverse events.\nBased upon moderate-certainty evidence from two observational trials from the same prospective surgery registry, which also included other shoulder arthroscopic procedures (downgraded for indirectness), the incidence proportion of serious adverse events within 30 days following surgery was 0.5% (0.4% to 0.7%; data collected 2006 to 2011), or 0.6% (0.5 % to 0.7%; data collected 2011 to 2013). Serious adverse events such as deep infection, pulmonary embolism, nerve injury, and death have been observed in participants following shoulder surgery.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe data in this review do not support the use of subacromial decompression in the treatment of rotator cuff disease manifest as painful shoulder impingement. High-certainty evidence shows that subacromial decompression does not provide clinically important benefits over placebo in pain, function or health-related quality of life. Including results from open-label trials (with high risk of bias) did not change the estimates considerably. Due to imprecision, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate for global assessment of treatment success; there was probably no clinically important benefit in this outcome either compared with placebo, exercises or non-operative treatment.\nAdverse event rates were low, 3% or less across treatment groups in the trials, which is consistent with adverse event rates reported in the two observational studies. Although precise estimates are unknown, the risk of serious adverse events is likely less than 1%.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This Cochrane Review is current to 22 October 2018. Trials were performed in hospitals in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the UK. We included eight trials (1062 participants), comparing surgery with placebo (fake) surgery or other non-operative treatment, such as exercise in people with impingement of the shoulder rotator cuff tendons.\nThe number of participants ranged from 42 to 313, mean age from 42 to 65 years, and duration of follow-up from one year up to 12 to 13 years. Five trials failed to report funding sources, three received funding from non-commercial foundations, and one trial author was paid by an instrument company."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4169 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMalaria is an important cause of illness and death across endemic regions. Considerable success against malaria has been achieved within the past decade mainly through long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs). However, elimination of the disease is proving difficult as current control methods do not protect against mosquitoes biting outdoors and when people are active. Repellents may provide a personal protection solution during these times.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of topical repellents, insecticide-treated clothing, and spatial repellents on malaria transmission.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 26 June 2017: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; US AFPMB; CAB Abstracts; and LILACS. We also searched trial registration platforms and conference proceedings; and contacted organizations and companies for ongoing and unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomized controlled trials of topical repellents proven to repel mosquitoes; permethrin-treated clothing; and spatial repellents such as mosquito coils. We included trials that investigated the use of repellents with or without LLINs, referred to as insecticide-treated nets.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. A third review author resolved any discrepancies. We analysed data by conducting meta-analysis and stratified by whether the trials had included LLINs. We combined results from cRCTs with individually RCTs by adjusting for clustering and presented results using forest plots. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nEight cRCTs and two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Six trials investigated topical repellents, two trials investigated insecticide-treated clothing, and two trials investigated spatial repellents.\nTopical repellents\nSix RCTS, five of them cluster-randomized, investigated topical repellents involving residents of malaria-endemic regions. Four trials used topical repellents in combination with nets, but two trials undertaken in displaced populations used topical repellents alone. It is unclear if topical repellents can prevent clinical malaria (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.07, very low certainty evidence) or malaria infection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.12, low-certainty evidence) caused by P. falciparum. It is also unclear if there is any protection against clinical cases of P. vivax (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.76, low-certainty evidence) or incidence of infections (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.41, low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of trials including insecticide-treated nets did not show a protective effect of topical repellents against malaria. Only two studies did not include insecticide-treated nets, and they measured different outcomes; one reported a protective effect against clinical cases of P. falciparum (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71); but the other study measured no protective effect against malaria infection incidence caused by either P. falciparum or P. vivax.\nInsecticide-treated clothing\nInsecticide-treated clothing were investigated in trials conducted in refugee camps in Pakistan and amongst military based in the Colombian Amazon. Neither study provided participants with insecticide-treated nets. In the absence of nets, treated clothing may reduce the incidence of clinical malaria caused by P. falciparum by approximately 50% (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.83, low-certainty evidence) and P. vivax (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.01, low-certainty evidence).\nSpatial repellents\nTwo cluster-randomized RCTs investigated mosquito coils for malaria prevention. We do not know the effect of spatial repellents on malaria prevention (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72, very low certainty evidence). There was large heterogeneity between studies and one study had high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to conclude topical or spatial repellents can prevent malaria. There is a need for better designed trials to generate higher certainty of evidence before well-informed recommendations can be made. Adherence to daily compliance remains a major limitation. Insecticide-treated clothing may reduce risk of malaria infection in the absence of insecticide-treated nets; further studies on insecticide-treated clothing in the general population should be done to broaden the applicability of the results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out if mosquito repellents — topical repellents (applied to the skin); insecticide-treated clothing; or spatial repellents such as mosquito coils — can prevent malaria. We collected and analysed the results of all relevant studies to answer this question and found data from ten trials: six on topical repellents, two on insecticide-treated clothing, and two on spatial repellents."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4170 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-γ) agonists are insulin-sensitising drugs used for the treatment of insulin resistance. In addition to lowering glucose in diabetes, these drugs may also protect against hyperlipidaemia and arteriosclerosis, which are risk factors for stroke. This is an update of a review first published in January 2014 and subsequently updated in December 2017 and October 2019.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of PPAR-γ agonists in the secondary prevention of stroke and related vascular events for people with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (1 January 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1949 to 1 January 2022), Embase (1980 to 1 January 2022), CINAHL (1982 to 1 January 2022), AMED (1985 to 1 January 2022), and 11 Chinese databases (1 January 2022). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists, and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies. We did not impose any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PPAR-γ agonists versus placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke and related vascular events in people with stroke or TIA, with the outcomes of recurrent stroke, vascular events, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy, and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified five RCTs with 5039 participants; two studies had a low risk of bias for all domains. Four studies evaluated the drug pioglitazone, and one study evaluated rosiglitazone. The participants in different studies were heterogeneous.\nRecurrent stroke\nThree studies evaluated the number of participants with recurrent stroke (4979 participants, a single study contributing 3876 of these). Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonists probably reduce the recurrence of stroke compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.99; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events\nEvidence that adverse events occurred more frequently in participants treated with PPAR-γ agonists when compared with placebo was uncertain due to wide confidence intervals and high levels of statistical heterogeneity: risk difference 10%, 95% CI -8% to 28%; low-certainty evidence).\nData were available on additional composite outcomes reflecting serious vascular events (all-cause death and other major vascular events; all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) from one study in 984 people. This study provided low-certainty evidence that PPAR-γ agonists led to fewer events (data not meta-analysed).\nVascular events\nPeroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonists given over a mean duration of 34.5 months in a single trial of 984 participants may reduce serious vascular events expressed as a composite outcome of total events of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence).\nOther outcomes\nOne study in 20 people measured insulin sensitivity, and one study in 40 people measured the ubiquitin-proteasome activity in carotid plaques. Our confidence in the improvements observed with PPAR-γ agonists were limited by small sample sizes and risk of bias. None of the studies reported the number of participants with disability due to vascular events or improvement in quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPeroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonists probably reduce recurrent stroke and total events of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke, and may improve insulin sensitivity and the stabilisation of carotid plaques. Their effects on adverse events are uncertain. Our conclusions should be interpreted with caution considering the small number and the quality of the included studies. Further well-designed, double-blind RCTs with large samples are required to assess the efficacy and safety of PPAR-γ agonists in the secondary prevention of stroke and related vascular events in people with stroke or TIA.\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": "Our conclusions should be interpreted with caution considering the small number of included studies and the limited quality of some of the studies. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials with large sample sizes are required."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4171 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThere have been a number of studies with conflicting results which have examined the effect of anti-tuberculous therapy in Crohn's disease. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the use of anti-tuberculous therapy for the maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of anti-tuberculous therapy for the maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane LIbrary, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to June 22, 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-tuberculous therapy compared to placebo or another active therapy in patients with quiescent Crohn's disease were considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.. The primary outcome was relapse. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. All data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nFour placebo-controlled RCTs including 206 participants were included. Three trials included an 8 to 16 week induction phase with tapering corticosteroids (prednisone, prednisolone or methylprednisolone) as induction therapy. Anti-tuberculous therapy included monotherapy with clofazimine, combination therapy with clofazimine, rifampin, ethambutol, and dapsone or combination therapy with clarithromycin, rifabutin and clofazimine. All of the studies were rated as unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment, three were rated as unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and two were rated as unclear risk of bias for blinding or participants and personnel. There was a statistically significant difference in relapse rates favoring anti-tuberculous therapy over placebo. Thirty-nine per cent (44/112) of patients in the anti-tuberculous therapy group relapsed at 9 months to 2 years compared to 67% (63/94) of placebo patients (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75, I2 = 47%). A GRADE analysis indicates that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to unknown risk of bias and sparse data. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the anti-tuberculous therapy group (37/159) compared to the placebo group (14/163) with a pooled RR of 2.57 (95% CI 1.45 to 4.55; N=322; studies=4, I2=64%). A GRADE analysis indicates that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to unknown risk of bias, unexplained heterogeneity and sparse data. There was no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. Nine per cent (14/159) of anti-tuberculous therapy patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 7% (11/163) of placebo patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77, I2 = 0%). Common adverse events included increased skin pigmentation and rashes. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAnti-tuberculous therapy may provide a benefit over placebo for the prevention of relapse in participants with Crohn's disease in remission. However, this result is very uncertain due to unclear study quality and the small numbers of patients assessed. Further studies are needed to provide better quality evidence for the use of anti-tuberculous therapy for maintaining remission in people with quiescent Crohn's disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did the researchers investigate?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The researchers studied whether anti-tuberculous therapy maintains remission in patients with Crohn's disease and whether it causes any harms (side effects). The investigators searched the medical literature extensively up to 22 June 2015."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4172 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAbout half of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) require surgery within 10 years of diagnosis. Resection of the affected segment is highly effective, however the majority of patients experience clinical recurrence after surgery. Most of these patients have asymptomatic endoscopic recurrence weeks or months before starting with symptoms. This inflammation can be detected by colonoscopy and is a good predictor of poor prognosis.Therapy guided by colonoscopy could tailor the management and improve the prognosis of postoperative CD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of prophylactic therapy guided by colonoscopy in reducing the postoperative recurrence of CD in adults.\nSearch methods\nThe following electronic databases were searched up to 17 December 2019: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Clinical Trials.gov, WHO Trial Registry and Cochrane IBD specialized register. Reference lists of included articles, as well as conference proceedings were handsearched.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cohort studies comparing colonoscopy-guided management versus management non-guided by colonoscopy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently considered studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Methodological quality was assessed using both the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies. The primary outcome was clinical recurrence. Secondary outcomes included: endoscopic, surgical recurrence and adverse events. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each dichotomous outcome and extracted the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. All estimates were reported with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nTwo RCTs (237 participants) and five cohort studies (794 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not conducted as the studies were highly heterogeneous. We included two comparisons.\nIntensification of prophylactic-therapy guided by colonoscopy versus intensification guided by clinical recurrence\nOne unblinded RCT and four retrospective cohort studies addressed this comparison. All participants received the same prophylactic therapy immediately after surgery. In the colonoscopy-based management group the therapy was intensified in case of endoscopic recurrence; in the control group the therapy was intensified only in case of symptoms.\nIn the RCT, clinical recurrence (defined as Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) > 150 points) in the colonoscopy-based management group was 37.7% (46/122) compared to 46.1% (21/52) in the control group at 18 months' follow up (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.18, 174 participants, low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in endoscopic recurrence at 18 months with colonoscopy-based management (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95, 1 RCT, 174 participants, low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence for surgical recurrence was very low, due to only four cohort studies with inconsistent results reporting this outcome.\nAdverse events at 18 months were similar in both groups, with 82% in the intervention group (100/122) and 86.5% in the control group (45/52) (RR 0.95, 95% CI:0.83 to 1.08, 1 RCT, 174 participants, low-certainty of evidence).The most common adverse events reported were alopecia, wound infection, sensory symptoms, systemic lupus, vasculitis and severe injection site reaction. Perforations or haemorrhages secondary to colonoscopy were not reported.\nInitiation of prophylactic-therapy guided by colonoscopy versus initiation immediately after surgery\nAn unblinded RCT and two retrospective cohort studies addressed this comparison. The control group received prophylactic therapy immediately after surgery, and in the colonoscopy-based management group the therapy was delayed up to detection of endoscopic recurrence.\nThe effects on clinical and endoscopic recurrence are uncertain (clinical recurrence until week 102: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.84; endoscopic recurrence at week 102: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.84; 1 RCT, 63 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Results from one cohort study were similarly uncertain (median follow-up 32 months, 199 participants). The effects on surgical recurrence at a median follow-up of 50 to 55 months were also uncertain in one cohort study (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.62, 133 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nThere were fewer adverse events with colonoscopy-based management (54.8% (17/31)) compared with the control group (93.8% (30/32)) but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.82; 1 RCT, 63 participants). Common adverse events were infections, gastrointestinal intolerance, leukopenia, pancreatitis and skin lesions. Perforations or haemorrhages secondary to colonoscopy were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIntensification of prophylactic-therapy guided by colonoscopy may reduce clinical and endoscopic postoperative recurrence of CD compared to intensification guided by symptoms, and there may be little or no difference in adverse effects. We are uncertain whether initiation of therapy guided by colonoscopy impacts postoperative recurrence and adverse events when compared to initiation immediately after surgery, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Further studies are necessary to improve the certainty of the evidence of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is Crohn's disease?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that can affect any segment of the gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms include abdominal pain, non-bloody diarrhoea and weight loss. CD is characterised by periods of clinical relapse when people experience symptoms and periods of clinical remission when the symptoms stop. Despite the available therapies, about half of patients require surgery and resection of the affected segment within 10 years of diagnosis. This surgery is highly effective, however, the majority require a second surgery after 10 years."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4173 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIncreased ultrasound surveillance of twin pregnancies has become accepted practice due to the higher risk of complications. There is no current consensus however as to the method and frequency of ultrasound monitoring that constitutes optimal care.\nObjectives\nTo systematically review the effects of different types and frequency of ultrasound surveillance for women with a twin pregnancy on neonatal, fetal and maternal outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (all searched 11 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials (including those published in abstract form) comparing the effects of described antenatal ultrasound surveillance regimens in twin pregnancies. Trials using a cluster-randomised design would have been eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. Trials using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion in this review.\nDifferent types and frequencies of ultrasound testing (for fetal surveillance and detection of specific problems) compared with each other and also compared with no testing. For example, an intervention might comprise a specific approach to ultrasound examination with dedicated components to detect twin-specific pathology. Different interventions could also include a specific type of surveillance at different intervals or different combinations at the same intervals.\nIn this review we only found one study looking at fetal growth (biometry) and Doppler ultrasounds at 25, 30 and 35 weeks' gestation versus fetal growth alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and quality, and extracted data. We checked data for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included one trial of 526 women with a twin pregnancy of two viable twins, with no known morphological abnormality, in this review. The trial compared women receiving fetal growth and Doppler ultrasounds at 25, 30 and 35 weeks' gestation to fetal growth alone. We judged the included study to be at low risk of bias however the risk of performance and detection bias were unclear.\nThe primary outcome was the perinatal mortality rate (after randomisation), for which there was no evidence of a clear difference between the fetal growth + Doppler and the fetal growth alone groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 2.41, low-quality evidence) with similar rates in both groups (seven events in the Dopper + fetal growth group and eight in the fetal growth alone group). No clear differences were seen between the two regimens for the other outcomes in this review: stillbirth (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.99), neonatal death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.46, low-quality evidence), gestational age at birth (weeks) (mean difference 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.59, moderate-quality evidence), infant requiring ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25), admission to special care or intensive care units (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05), caesarean section (any) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23, high-quality evidence), elective caesarean section (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.47), emergency caesarean section (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32), induction of labour (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.50, moderate-quality evidence) or antenatal hospital admission (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.15, high-quality evidence). The number of preterm births before 28 weeks' gestation was not reported in the included study. For the mortality-related outcomes, event numbers were small.\nThe included study did not report the majority of our maternal and infant secondary outcomes. Infant outcomes not reported included fetal acidosis, Apgar scores less than 7 at five minutes and preterm birth before 37 and 34 weeks' gestation. The maternal outcomes; length of antenatal hospital stay, timely diagnosis of significant complications, rate of preterm, prelabour rupture of membranes and women's level of satisfaction with their care were not reported. The study did not classify twin pregnancies according to their chorionicity. An awareness of the chorionicity may have improved applicability of this data set.\nWe downgraded outcomes assessed using GRADE for imprecision of effect estimates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review is based on one small study which was underpowered for detection of rare outcomes such as perinatal mortality, stillbirth and neonatal death.\nThere is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform best practice for fetal ultrasound surveillance regimens when caring for women with a twin pregnancy. More studies are needed to evaluate the effects of currently used ultrasound surveillance regimens in twin pregnancies. Future research could report on the important maternal and infant outcomes as listed in this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We do not currently know how different timings and ways of scanning benefit women with twin pregnancies in terms of improved birth outcomes. Finding this out would mean that women with twin pregnancies could be monitored effectively and that the twins could be delivered when it was safest for them and their mother."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4174 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIndications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure.\nSearch methods\nIn January 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. Our primary outcomes were SSI, mortality, and wound dehiscence.\nMain results\nIn this fourth update, we added 18 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one new economic study, resulting in a total of 62 RCTs (13,340 included participants) and six economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in a wide range of surgeries, including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain.\nPrimary outcomes\nEleven studies (6384 participants) which reported mortality were pooled. There is low-certainty evidence showing there may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (0.84%) compared with standard dressings (1.17%) but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefits and harm; risk ratio (RR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.30; I2 = 0%). Fifty-four studies reported SSI; 44 studies (11,403 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT probably results in fewer SSIs (8.7% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (11.75%) after surgery; RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; I2 = 29%). Thirty studies reported wound dehiscence; 23 studies (8724 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference in dehiscence between people treated with NPWT (6.62%) and those treated with standard dressing (6.97%), although there is imprecision around the estimate that includes risk of benefit and harms; RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; I2 = 4%). Evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias, or a combination of these.\nSecondary outcomes\nThere is low-certainty evidence for the outcomes of reoperation and seroma; in each case, confidence intervals included both benefit and harm. There may be a reduced risk of reoperation favouring the standard dressing arm, but this was imprecise: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.41; I2 = 2%; 18 trials; 6272 participants). There may be a reduced risk of seroma for people treated with NPWT but this is imprecise: the RR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 15 trials; 5436 participants). For skin blisters, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with NPWT may be more likely to develop skin blisters compared with those treated with standard dressing (RR 3.55; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.77; I2 = 74%; 11 trials; 5015 participants). The effect of NPWT on haematoma is uncertain (RR 0.79; 95 % CI 0.48 to 1.30; I2 = 0%; 17 trials; 5909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence of little to no difference in reported pain between groups. Pain was measured in different ways and most studies could not be pooled; this GRADE assessment is based on all fourteen trials reporting pain; the pooled RR for the proportion of participants who experienced pain was 1.52 (95% CI 0.20, 11.31; I2 = 34%; two studies; 632 participants).\nCost-effectiveness\nSix economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in five indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty; coronary artery bypass grafts; and vascular surgery with inguinal incisions. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years or an equivalent, and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the evidence certainty varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPeople with primary closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSIs than people treated with standard dressings but there is probably no difference in wound dehiscence (moderate-certainty evidence). There may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT compared with standard dressings but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). People treated with NPWT may experience more instances of skin blistering compared with standard dressing treatment (low-certainty evidence). There are no clear differences in other secondary outcomes where most evidence is low or very low-certainty. Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 62 studies which compared NPWT with standard dressings and looked at surgical site complications. A variety of NPWT systems was used. A total of 13,340 people have been included in this review. A wide variety of surgeries was included such as knee and hip operations, caesarean sections, operations for broken bones and abdominal surgeries. There were more women than men included in the review because several large trials included only women having caesarean sections. Most of the people included in the review live in North America, Europe or Australasia.\nEleven studies (6384 people) reported on risk of death and found that there may be a lower risk with NPWT compared with standard dressings but this is not clear. Forty-four studies (11,403 people) looking at SSI were combined, and found that NPWT probably reduced the risk of SSI compared with standard dressings. Twenty-three studies (8724 people) found that there is probably little or no difference in wound reopening between NPWT and standard dressings. For most other outcomes, the evidence showed that there may not be clear differences between the treatments, or that we are uncertain about the true effect of the treatments. The exception was skin blistering where NPWT may increase the proportion of people who experience this after surgery.\nSix cost-effectiveness studies were included in the review. These studies looked at women who had had caesarean sections, people with lower limb fractures, knee and hip surgeries, vascular surgery and heart surgery. All these studies used clinical information from trials included in this review. NPWT is probably cost-effective for caesarean section wounds in obese women and probably not cost-effective for fracture surgery wounds but we are less sure about its cost-effectiveness in the other types of surgery."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4175 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEarly accurate detection of all skin cancer types is essential to guide appropriate management and to improve morbidity and survival. Melanoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) are high-risk skin cancers which have the potential to metastasise and ultimately lead to death, whereas basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is usually localised with potential to infiltrate and damage surrounding tissue. Anxiety around missing early curable cases needs to be balanced against inappropriate referral and unnecessary excision of benign lesions. Computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) systems use artificial intelligence to analyse lesion data and arrive at a diagnosis of skin cancer. When used in unreferred settings ('primary care'), CAD may assist general practitioners (GPs) or other clinicians to more appropriately triage high-risk lesions to secondary care. Used alongside clinical and dermoscopic suspicion of malignancy, CAD may reduce unnecessary excisions without missing melanoma cases.\nObjectives\nTo determine the accuracy of CAD systems for diagnosing cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, BCC or cSCC in adults, and to compare its accuracy with that of dermoscopy.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nStudies of any design that evaluated CAD alone, or in comparison with dermoscopy, in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma or BCC or cSCC, and compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities separately by type of CAD system, using the bivariate hierarchical model. We compared CAD with dermoscopy using (a) all available CAD data (indirect comparisons), and (b) studies providing paired data for both tests (direct comparisons). We tested the contribution of human decision-making to the accuracy of CAD diagnoses in a sensitivity analysis by removing studies that gave CAD results to clinicians to guide diagnostic decision-making.\nMain results\nWe included 42 studies, 24 evaluating digital dermoscopy-based CAD systems (Derm–CAD) in 23 study cohorts with 9602 lesions (1220 melanomas, at least 83 BCCs, 9 cSCCs), providing 32 datasets for Derm–CAD and seven for dermoscopy. Eighteen studies evaluated spectroscopy-based CAD (Spectro–CAD) in 16 study cohorts with 6336 lesions (934 melanomas, 163 BCC, 49 cSCCs), providing 32 datasets for Spectro–CAD and six for dermoscopy. These consisted of 15 studies using multispectral imaging (MSI), two studies using electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and one study using diffuse-reflectance spectroscopy. Studies were incompletely reported and at unclear to high risk of bias across all domains. Included studies inadequately address the review question, due to an abundance of low-quality studies, poor reporting, and recruitment of highly selected groups of participants.\nAcross all CAD systems, we found considerable variation in the hardware and software technologies used, the types of classification algorithm employed, methods used to train the algorithms, and which lesion morphological features were extracted and analysed across all CAD systems, and even between studies evaluating CAD systems. Meta–analysis found CAD systems had high sensitivity for correct identification of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in highly selected populations, but with low and very variable specificity, particularly for Spectro–CAD systems. Pooled data from 22 studies estimated the sensitivity of Derm–CAD for the detection of melanoma as 90.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.0% to 94.0%) and specificity as 74.3% (95% CI 63.6% to 82.7%). Pooled data from eight studies estimated the sensitivity of multispectral imaging CAD (MSI–CAD) as 92.9% (95% CI 83.7% to 97.1%) and specificity as 43.6% (95% CI 24.8% to 64.5%). When applied to a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions at the mean observed melanoma prevalence of 20%, Derm–CAD would miss 20 melanomas and would lead to 206 false-positive results for melanoma. MSI–CAD would miss 14 melanomas and would lead to 451 false diagnoses for melanoma. Preliminary findings suggest CAD systems are at least as sensitive as assessment of dermoscopic images for the diagnosis of invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants. We are unable to make summary statements about the use of CAD in unreferred populations, or its accuracy in detecting keratinocyte cancers, or its use in any setting as a diagnostic aid, because of the paucity of studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn highly selected patient populations all CAD types demonstrate high sensitivity, and could prove useful as a back-up for specialist diagnosis to assist in minimising the risk of missing melanomas. However, the evidence base is currently too poor to understand whether CAD system outputs translate to different clinical decision–making in practice. Insufficient data are available on the use of CAD in community settings, or for the detection of keratinocyte cancers. The evidence base for individual systems is too limited to draw conclusions on which might be preferred for practice. Prospective comparative studies are required that evaluate the use of already evaluated CAD systems as diagnostic aids, by comparison to face–to–face dermoscopy, and in participant populations that are representative of those in which the test would be used in practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who do the results of this review apply to?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Studies were largely conducted in Europe (29, 69%) and North America (8, 19%). Mean age (reported in 6/42 studies) ranged from 32 to 49 years for melanoma. The percentage of people with a final diagnosis of melanoma ranged from 1% to 52%. It was not always possible to tell whether suspicion of skin cancer in study participants was based on clinical examination alone, or both clinical and dermoscopic examinations. Almost all studies were done in people with skin lesions who were seen at specialist clinics rather than by doctors in primary care."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4176 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEight out of 10 major antihypertensive trials in older adults attempted to achieve a target systolic blood pressure (BP) less than 160 mmHg. Collectively these trials demonstrated benefit for treatment, as compared to no treatment, for an older adult with BP greater than 160 mmHg. However an even lower BP target of less than 140 mmHg is commonly applied to all age groups. At the present time it is not known whether a lower or higher BP target is associated with better cardiovascular outcomes in older adults.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of a higher (less than 150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg) BP target compared to the lower BP target of less than 140/90 mmHg in hypertensive adults 65 years of age or older.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials, of at least one year's duration, conducted on hypertensive adults aged 65 years or older, which report the effect on mortality and morbidity of a higher systolic or diastolic BP treatment target (whether ambulatory, home, or office measurements) in the range of systolic BP less than 150 to 160 mmHg or diastolic BP less than 95 to 105 mmHg as compared to a lower BP treatment target of less than 140/90 mmHg or lower.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined data for dichotomous outcomes using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and for continuous outcomes we used mean difference (MD). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, institutionalisation, and cardiovascular serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, unplanned hospitalisation, each component of cardiovascular serious adverse events separately (including cerebrovascular disease, cardiac disease, vascular disease, and renal failure), total serious adverse events, total minor adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse effects, systolic BP achieved, and diastolic BP achieved.\nMain results\nWe found and included three unblinded randomised trials in 8221 older adults (mean age 74.8 years), in which higher BP targets of less than 150/90 mmHg (two trials) and less than 160/90 mmHg (one trial) were compared to a lower target of less than 140/90 mmHg. Treatment to the two different BP targets over two to four years failed to produce a difference in any of our primary outcomes, including all-cause mortality (RR 1.24 95% CI 0.99 to 1.54), stroke (RR 1.25 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67) and total cardiovascular serious adverse events (RR 1.19 95% CI 0.98 to 1.45). However, the 95% confidence intervals of these outcomes suggest the lower BP target is probably not worse, and might offer a clinically important benefit. We judged all comparisons to be based on low-quality evidence. Data on adverse effects were not available from all trials and not different, including total serious adverse events, total minor adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt the present time there is insufficient evidence to know whether a higher BP target (less than150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg) or a lower BP target (less than 140/90 mmHg) is better for older adults with high BP. Additional good-quality trials assessing BP targets in this population are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found three randomised trials (the 'gold standard' of medical evidence) that investigated this question in a total of 8221 older adults (average age 75 years, 59% female). We did not find a difference between the higher BP target and the conventional lower BP target, however an important difference favoring the lower BP target could not be ruled out."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4177 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many dental procedures cause bacteraemia, which could lead to bacterial endocarditis in a small proportion of people. The incidence of bacterial endocarditis is low, but it has a high mortality rate.\nGuidelines in many countries have recommended that antibiotics be administered to people at high risk of endocarditis prior to invasive dental procedures. However, guidance by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales states that antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not recommended routinely for people undergoing dental procedures. This is an update of a review that we first conducted in 2004 and last updated in 2013.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nTo determine whether prophylactic antibiotic administration, compared to no antibiotic administration or placebo, before invasive dental procedures in people at risk or at high risk of bacterial endocarditis, influences mortality, serious illness or the incidence of endocarditis.\nSecondary objectives\nTo determine whether the effect of dental antibiotic prophylaxis differs in people with different cardiac conditions predisposing them to increased risk of endocarditis, and in people undergoing different high risk dental procedures.\nHarms\nHad we foundno evidence from randomised controlled trials or cohort studies on whether prophylactic antibiotics affected mortality or serious illness, and we had found evidence from these or case-control studies suggesting that prophylaxis with antibiotics reduced the incidence of endocarditis, then we would also have assessed whether the harms of prophylaxis with single antibiotic doses, such as with penicillin (amoxicillin 2 g or 3 g) before invasive dental procedures, compared with no antibiotic or placebo, equalled the benefits in prevention of endocarditis in people at high risk of this disease.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 10 May 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies\nSelection criteria\nDue to the low incidence of bacterial endocarditis, we anticipated that few if any trials would be located. For this reason, we included cohort and case-control studies with suitably matched control or comparison groups. The intervention was antibiotic prophylaxis, compared to no antibiotic prophylaxis or placebo, before a dental procedure in people with an increased risk of bacterial endocarditis. Cohort studies would need to follow at-risk individuals and assess outcomes following any invasive dental procedures, grouping participants according to whether or not they had received prophylaxis. Case-control studies would need to match people who had developed endocarditis after undergoing an invasive dental procedure (and who were known to be at increased risk before undergoing the procedure) with those at similar risk who had not developed endocarditis.\nOur outcomes of interest were mortality or serious adverse events requiring hospital admission; development of endocarditis following any dental procedure in a defined time period; development of endocarditis due to other non-dental causes; any recorded adverse effects of the antibiotics; and the cost of antibiotic provision compared to that of caring for patients who developed endocarditis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search records, selected studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in the included study and extracted data from the included study. As an author team, we judged the certainty of the evidence identified for the main comparison and key outcomes using GRADE criteria. We presented the main results in a summary of findings table.\nMain results\nOur new search did not find any new studies for inclusion since the last version of the review in 2013.\nNo randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) or cohort studies were included in the previous versions of the review, but one case-control study met the inclusion criteria. The trial authors collected information on 48 people who had contracted bacterial endocarditis over a specific two-year period and had undergone a medical or dental procedure with an indication for prophylaxis within the past 180 days. These people were matched to a similar group of people who had not contracted bacterial endocarditis. All study participants had undergone an invasive medical or dental procedure. The two groups were compared to establish whether those who had received preventive antibiotics (penicillin) were less likely to have developed endocarditis. The authors found no significant effect of penicillin prophylaxis on the incidence of endocarditis. No data on other outcomes were reported.\nThe level of certainty we have about the evidence is very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere remains no clear evidence about whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective or ineffective against bacterial endocarditis in at-risk people who are about to undergo an invasive dental procedure. We cannot determine whether the potential harms and costs of antibiotic administration outweigh any beneficial effect. Ethically, practitioners should discuss the potential benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis with their patients before a decision is made about administration.\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": "Bacterial endocarditis is an infection that tends to occur in previously damaged or malformed areas of the heart. It is usually treated with antibiotics. Though rare, bacterial endocarditis is potentially life-threatening. Up to 30% of people who get it may die, even with antibiotic treatment.\nInvasive dental procedures could cause bacterial endocarditis in people who are at risk of developing it. The number of cases of bacterial endocarditis (if any) directly caused in this way is unknown. Many dental procedures cause bacteraemia, which is the presence of bacteria in the blood. Although bacteraemia is usually dealt with quickly by the body’s immune system, some experts think that it may lead to bacterial endocarditis in some at-risk people.\nGuidelines in many countries have recommended that people at high risk of bacterial endocarditis be given antibiotics before undergoing invasive dental procedures. But other authorities have questioned the routine use of antibiotics, arguing that overprescription has resulted in the emergence of resistance to common antibiotics in many organisms, and also that the occasional adverse effects of antibiotics (severe allergic reactions) may outweigh the potential benefits.\nIn 2007, guidance from the American Heart Association changed to recommend that antibiotics be given only to people at high risk of developing bacterial endocarditis before dental interventions. Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales went further, advising against the routine prescription of preventive antibiotics for invasive dental or surgical procedures."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4178 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are common and may lead to complications. Most children experience between three and six ARTIs annually. Although most infections are self-limiting, symptoms can be distressing. Many treatments are used to control symptoms and shorten illness duration. Most treatments have minimal benefit and may lead to adverse events. Oral homeopathic medicinal products could play a role in childhood ARTI management if evidence for their effectiveness is established. This is an update of a review first published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of oral homeopathic medicinal products compared with placebo or conventional therapy to prevent and treat ARTIs in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 3), including the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to 16 March 2022), Embase (2010 to 16 March 2022), CINAHL (1981 to 16 March 2022), AMED (1985 to 16 March 2022), CAMbase (searched 16 March 2022), and British Homeopathic Library (searched 26 June 2013 - no longer operating). We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (16 March 2022), checked references, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or double-blind cluster-RCTs comparing oral homeopathy medicinal products with identical placebo or self-selected conventional treatments to prevent or treat ARTIs in children aged 0 to 16 years.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nIn this 2022 update, we identified three new RCTs involving 251 children, for a total of 11 included RCTs with 1813 children receiving oral homeopathic medicinal products or a control treatment (placebo or conventional treatment) for ARTIs. All studies focused on upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), with only one study including some lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). Six treatment studies examined the effect on URTI recovery, and five studies investigated the effect on preventing URTIs after one to four months of treatment. Two treatment and three prevention studies involved homeopaths individualising treatment. The other studies used predetermined, non-individualised treatments. All studies involved highly diluted homeopathic medicinal products, with dilutions ranging from 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-200.\nWe identified several limitations to the included studies, in particular methodological inconsistencies and high attrition rates, failure to conduct intention-to-treat analysis, selective reporting, and apparent protocol deviations. We assessed three studies as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, and many studies had additional domains with unclear risk of bias. Four studies received funding from homeopathy manufacturers; one study support from a non-government organisation; two studies government support; one study was co-sponsored by a university; and three studies did not report funding support.\nMethodological inconsistencies and significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded robust quantitative meta-analysis. Only four outcomes were common to more than one study and could be combined for analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were generally small with wide confidence intervals (CI), and the contributing studies found conflicting effects, so there was little certainty that the efficacy of the intervention could be ascertained. All studies assessed as at low risk of bias showed no benefit from oral homeopathic medicinal products, whilst trials at unclear or high risk of bias reported beneficial effects.\nFor the comparison of individualised homeopathy versus placebo or usual care for the prevention of ARTIs, two trials reported on disease severity; due to heterogeneity the data were not combined, but neither study demonstrated a clinically significant difference. We combined data from two trials for the outcome need for antibiotics (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence).\nFor the comparison of non-individualised homeopathy versus placebo or usual care for the prevention of ARTIs, only the outcome recurrence of ARTI was reported by more than one trial; data from three studies were combined for this outcome (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.72; low-certainty evidence).\nFor the comparison of both individualised and non-individualised homeopathy versus placebo or usual care for the treatment of ARTIs, two studies provided data on short-term cure (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 19.54) and long-term cure (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.96; very low-certainty evidence). The studies demonstrated an opposite direction of effect for both outcomes.\nSix studies reported on disease severity but were not combined as they used different scoring systems and scales. Three studies reported adverse events (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.16 to 4.03; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nPooling of five prevention and six treatment studies did not show any consistent benefit of homeopathic medicinal products compared to placebo on ARTI recurrence or cure rates in children. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low to very low for the majority of outcomes. We found no evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic medicinal products for ARTIs in children. Adverse events were poorly reported, and we could not draw conclusions regarding safety.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for randomised controlled trials (studies where people are randomly assigned to one of two or more treatment groups) that investigated whether oral homeopathic medicines, compared to placebo or usual care ARTI therapies, were effective in the prevention or treatment of ARTIs in children aged up to 16 years. We compared and summarised the results of the studies, and rated our confidence in the evidence based on factors such as study methods and number of participants."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4179 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe strain on public resources to meet the healthcare needs of populations through publicly-provided health insurance programmes is increasing and many governments turn to private health insurance (PHI) to ease the pressure on government budgets. With the goal of improving access to basic health care for citizens through PHI programmes, several high-income countries have developed strong regulations for PHI schemes. Low- and middle-income countries have the opportunity to learn from this experience to optimise PHI. If poorly regulated, PHI can hardly achieve an adequate quantity or quality of population coverage, as can be seen in the USA where a third of adults younger than 65 years of age have no insurance, sporadic coverage or coverage that exposes them to high out-of-pocket healthcare costs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of policies that regulate private health insurance on utilisation, quality, and cost of health care provided.\nSearch methods\nIn November 2019 we searched CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; Sociological Abstracts and Social Services Abstracts; ICTRP; ClinicalTrials.gov; and Web of Science Core Collection for papers that have cited the included studies. This complemented the search conducted in February 2017 in IBSS; EconLit; and Global Health. We also searched selected grey literature databases and web-sites.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and controlled before-after (CBA) studies conducted in any population or setting that assessed one or more of the following interventions that governments use to regulate private health insurance: legislation and licensing, monitoring, auditing, and intelligence.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence resolving discrepancies by consensus. We planned to summarise the results (using random-effects or fixed-effect meta-analysis) to produce an overall summary if an average intervention effect across studies was considered meaningful, and we would have discussed the implications of any differences in intervention effects across studies. However, due to the nature of the data obtained, we have provided a narrative synthesis of the findings.\nMain results\nWe included seven CBA studies, conducted in the USA, and that directly assessed state laws on cancer screening. Only for-profit PHI schemes were addressed in the included studies and no study addressed other types of PHI (community and not for-profit). The seven studies were assessed as having 'unclear risk' of bias. All seven studies reported on utilisation of healthcare services, and one study reported on costs. None of the included studies reported on quality of health care and patient health outcomes. We assessed the certainty of evidence for patient health outcomes, and utilisation and costs of healthcare services as very low. Therefore, we are uncertain of the effects of government mandates on for-profit PHI schemes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review suggests that, from currently available evidence, it is uncertain whether policies that regulate private health insurance have an effect on utilisation of healthcare services, costs, quality of care, or patient health outcomes. The findings come from studies conducted in the USA and might therefore not be applicable to other countries; since the regulatory environment could be different.\nStudies are required in countries at different income levels because the effects of government regulation of PHI are likely to differ across these income and health system settings. Further studies should assess the different types of regulation (including regulation and licensing, monitoring, auditing, and intelligence). While regulatory research on PHI remains relatively scanty, future research can draw on the rich body of research on the regulation of other health financing interventions such as user fees and results-based provider payments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this Cochrane Review was to assess the effects of government regulations of private health insurance. The review authors searched for all relevant studies to answer this question."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4180 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDementia is a chronic, progressive and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disease. Advanced dementia is characterised by profound cognitive impairment, inability to communicate verbally and complete functional dependence. Usual care of people with advanced dementia is not underpinned universally by a palliative approach. Palliative care has focused traditionally on care of people with cancer, but for more than a decade, there have been calls worldwide to extend palliative care services to include all people with life-limiting illnesses in need of specialist care, including people with dementia.\nThis review is an updated version of a review first published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 7 October 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), four other databases and two trial registries on 7 October 2020 to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating the impact of palliative care interventions for adults with advanced dementia of any type. Participants could be people with advanced dementia, their family members, clinicians or paid care staff. We included clinical interventions and non-clinical interventions. Comparators were usual care or another palliative care intervention. We did not exclude studies based on outcomes measured.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors (SW, EM, PC) independently assessed all potential studies identified in the search against the review inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted data from eligible studies. Where appropriate, we estimated pooled treatment effects in a fixed-effect meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE.\nMain results\nNine studies (2122 participants) met the review inclusion criteria. Two studies were individually-randomised RCTs, six were cluster-randomised RCTs and one was a controlled before-and-after study. We conducted two separate comparisons: organisation and delivery of care interventions versus usual care (six studies, 1162 participants) and advance care planning interventions versus usual care (three studies, 960 participants). Two studies were carried out in acute hospitals and seven in nursing homes or long-term care facilities. For both comparisons, we found the included studies to be sufficiently similar to conduct meta-analyses.\nChanges to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may increase comfort in dying (MD 1.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.64; 5 studies, 335 participants; very low certainty evidence). However, the evidence is very uncertain and unlikely to be clinically significant. These changes may also increase the likelihood of having a palliative care plan in place (RR 5.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 25.02; 1 study, 99 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence), but again the evidence is very uncertain. Such interventions probably have little effect on the use of non-palliative interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.72; 2 studies, 292 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). They may also have little or no effect on documentation of advance directives (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.25; 2 studies, 112 participants; I2 = 52%; very low certainty evidence), or whether discussions take place about advance care planning (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.18; 1 study, 193 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence) and goals of care (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.54; 1 study, 13 participants; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). No included studies assessed adverse effects.\nAdvance care planning interventions for people with advanced dementia probably increase the documentation of advance directives (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.41; 2 studies, 384; moderate certainty evidence) and the number of discussions about goals of care (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.59; 2 studies, 384 participants; moderate certainty evidence). They may also slightly increase concordance with goals of care (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.79; 1 study, 63 participants; low certainty evidence). On the other hand, they may have little or no effect on perceived symptom management (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.49 to 2.89; 1 study, 67 participants; very low certainty evidence) or whether advance care planning discussions occur (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24; 1 study, 67 participants; low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence on palliative care interventions in advanced dementia is limited in quantity and certainty. When compared to usual care, changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may lead to improvements in comfort in dying, but the evidence for this was of very low certainty. Advance care planning interventions, compared to usual care, probably increase the documentation of advance directives and the occurrence of discussions about goals of care, and may also increase concordance with goals of care. We did not detect other effects. The uncertainty in the evidence across all outcomes in both comparisons is mainly driven by imprecision of effect estimates and risk of bias in the included studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "People with dementia experience a gradual decline in their mental abilities and their ability to take care of themselves. The decline occurs over an extended period, so it is often difficult to identify the final, terminal phase of the disease. During the advanced stage of dementia, people are unable to communicate verbally, are completely dependent on others, have difficulty swallowing and often experience double incontinence. People with advanced dementia often become confined to a chair or bed and are at increased risk of infections, such as pneumonia.\nPalliative care is a particular way of caring for people who have diseases that cannot be cured. The main aims of palliative care are to reduce pain and to maintain the best possible quality of life as death approaches. Palliative care is used a lot with people with cancer but is not used much for people with advanced dementia."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4181 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSensory stimulation via acupuncture has been reported to alter activities of numerous neural systems by activating multiple efferent pathways. Acupuncture, one of the main physical therapies in Traditional Chinese Medicine, has been widely used to treat patients with stroke for over hundreds of years. This is the first update of the Cochrane Review originally published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether acupuncture could reduce the proportion of people with death or dependency, while improving quality of life, after acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched on February 2, 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Ovid (CENTRAL Ovid; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to February 2017), Embase Ovid (1974 to February 2017), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) EBSCO (1982 to February 2017), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED; 1985 to February 2017), China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (1998 to February 2017), and the VIP database (VIP Chinese Science Journal Evaluation Reports; 1989 to February 2017). We also identified relevant trials in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (last searched on Feburuary 20, 2017), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (last searched on April 30, 2017), and Clinicaltrials.gov (last searched on April 30, 2017). In addition, we handsearched the reference lists of systematic reviews and relevant clinical trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of acupuncture started within 30 days from stroke onset compared with placebo or sham acupuncture or open control (no placebo) in people with acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or both. Needling into the skin was required for acupuncture. Comparisons were made versus (1) all controls (open control or sham acupuncture), and (2) sham acupuncture controls.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data independently. We contacted study authors to ask for missing data. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach. We defined the primary outcome as death or dependency at the end of follow-up .\nMain results\nWe included in this updated review 33 RCTs with 3946 participants. Twenty new trials with 2780 participants had been completed since the previous review. Outcome data were available for up to 22 trials (2865 participants) that compared acupuncture with any control (open control or sham acupuncture) but for only six trials (668 participants) that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture control. We downgraded the evidence to low or very low quality because of risk of bias in included studies, inconsistency in the acupuncture intervention and outcome measures, and imprecision in effect estimates.\nWhen compared with any control (11 trials with 1582 participants), findings of lower odds of death or dependency at the end of follow-up and over the long term (≥ three months) in the acupuncture group were uncertain (odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.79; very low-quality evidence; and OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; eight trials with 1436 participants; very low-quality evidence, respectively) and were not confirmed by trials comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.18; low-quality evidence; and OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.12; low-quality evidence, respectively).\nIn trials comparing acupuncture with any control, findings that acupuncture was associated with increases in the global neurological deficit score and in the motor function score were uncertain (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.32; 12 trials with 1086 participants; very low-quality evidence; and SMD 1.08, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.71; 11 trials with 895 participants; very low-quality evidence). These findings were not confirmed in trials comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.57; low-quality evidence; and SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.17; low-quality evidence, respectively).\nTrials comparing acupuncture with any control have reported little or no difference in death or institutional care at the end of follow-up (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.12; five trials with 1120 participants; low-quality evidence), death within the first two weeks (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.55; 18 trials with 1612 participants; low-quality evidence), or death at the end of follow-up (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.58; 22 trials with 2865 participants; low-quality evidence).\nThe incidence of adverse events (eg, pain, dizziness, faint) in the acupuncture arms of open and sham control trials was 6.2% (64/1037 participants), and 1.4% of these (14/1037 participants) discontinued acupuncture. When acupuncture was compared with sham acupuncture, findings for adverse events were uncertain (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.16; five trials with 576 participants; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated review indicates that apparently improved outcomes with acupuncture in acute stroke are confounded by the risk of bias related to use of open controls. Adverse events related to acupuncture were reported to be minor and usually did not result in stopping treatment. Future studies are needed to confirm or refute any effects of acupuncture in acute stroke. Trials should clearly report the method of randomization, concealment of allocation, and whether blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors was achieved, while paying close attention to the effects of acupuncture on long-term functional outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To assess the effects and safety of acupuncture for rehabilitating people after stroke caused by blood clots or bleeding in the brain."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4182 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital delivery, a fourfold increase in opioid use is reported from 1999 to 2014 (Haight 2018). Heroin crosses the placenta, and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and last updated in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with a psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions alone for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment, and reducing the use of substances.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the following databases to February 2020: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of any pharmacological maintenance treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high dropout rate (30% to 40%), and this was unbalanced between groups.\nMethadone versus buprenorphine:\nThere was probably no evidence of a difference in the dropout rate from treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.20, three studies, 223 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in the use of primary substances between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.68, two studies, 151 participants, low-quality evidence). Birth weight may be higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that reported data MD;-530.00 g, 95%CI -662.78 to -397.22 (one study, 19 particpants) and MD: -215.00 g, 95%CI -238.93 to -191.07 (one study, 131 participants) although the results could not be pooled due to very high heterogeneity (very low-quality of evidence). The third study reported that there was no evidence of a difference. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the APGAR score (MD: 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03, two studies,163 participants, low-quality evidence). Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, may not differ between groups (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to1.63, three studies, 166 participants, low-quality evidence).\nOnly one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the number of mothers with serious adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.83, 175 participants, low-quality evidence) and we found there may be no difference in the numbers of newborns with serious AEs (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.59, 38.49,131 participants, low-quality evidence).\nMethadone versus slow-release morphine:\nThere were no dropouts in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine may be superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants, low-quality evidence).\nIn the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine, no side effects were reported for the mother. In contrast, one child in the methadone group had central apnoea, and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea (low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMethadone and buprenorphine may be similar in efficacy and safety for the treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women and their babies. There is not enough evidence to make conclusions for the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine. Overall, the body of evidence is too small to make firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "\nMethadone and buprenorphine may be substantially similar in efficacy and safety for the treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women and their babies. There is not enough evidence to make conclusions for the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine. Overall, the body of evidence is too small to make firm conclusions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4183 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTetanus is an acute, often fatal, disease caused by an exotoxin produced by Clostridium tetani. It occurs in newborn infants born to mothers who do not have sufficient circulating antibodies to protect the infant passively, by transplacental transfer. Prevention may be possible by the vaccination of pregnant or non-pregnant women, or both, with tetanus toxoid, and the provision of clean delivery services. Tetanus toxoid consists of a formaldehyde-treated toxin that stimulates the production of antitoxin.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of tetanus toxoid, administered to women of reproductive age or pregnant women, to prevent cases of, and deaths from, neonatal tetanus.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2015), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 1), PubMed (1966 to 28 January 2015), EMBASE (1974 to 28 January 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of tetanus toxoid in pregnant women or women of reproductive age on numbers of neonatal tetanus cases and deaths.\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\nTwo effectiveness trials (9823 infants) and one safety trial (48 mothers) were included. The main outcomes were measured on infants born to a subset of those randomised women who became pregnant during the course of the studies. For our primary outcomes, there was no high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments.\nOne study (1182 infants) assessed the effectiveness of tetanus toxoid in comparison with influenza vaccine in preventing neonatal tetanus deaths. A single dose did not provide significant protection against neonatal tetanus deaths, (risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.24; 494 infants; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, a two- or three-dose course did provide protection against neonatal deaths, (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; 688 infants; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence). Administration of a two- or three-dose course resulted in significant protection when all causes of death are considered as an outcome (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55; 688 infants; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence). No effect was detected on causes of death other than tetanus. Cases of neonatal tetanus after at least one dose of tetanus toxoid were reduced in the tetanus toxoid group, (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.40; 1182 infants; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence).\nAnother study, involving 8641 children, assessed the effectiveness of tetanus-diphtheria toxoid in comparison with cholera toxoid in preventing neonatal mortality after one or two doses. Neonatal mortality was reduced in the tetanus-diphtheria toxoid group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.82). In preventing deaths at four to 14 days, neonatal mortality was reduced again in the tetanus-diphtheria toxoid group (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55). The quality of evidence as assessed using GRADE was found to be low.\nThe third small trial assessed that pain at injection site was reported more frequently among pregnant women who received tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis than placebo (RR 5.68, 95% CI 1.54 to 20.94; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvailable evidence supports the implementation of immunisation practices on women of reproductive age or pregnant women in communities with similar, or higher, levels of risk of neonatal tetanus, to the two study sites.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "A protective effect against deaths caused by tetanus was observed among the newborns from mothers who received at least two doses of the tetanus toxoid vaccine when compared with newborns from mothers who were immunised with influenza vaccine. A similar protective effect was seen with at least two doses of the tetanus vaccine against newborn deaths. Cases of tetanus were less frequent among newborns from women who received at least one dose of tetanus toxoid. This evidence was of moderate quality. In the second trial immunisation of women of reproductive age with tetanus diphtheria toxoid had a greater protective effect against newborn deaths than did cholera vaccine. The quality of the evidence was low for this outcome. In the third study no serious adverse events (during pregnancy or in babies) were related to the receiving of Tdap vaccine. The women experienced more pain with the vaccine injection than with the placebo. The available evidence supports the implementation of immunisation programs for women of reproductive age or pregnant women in communities with similar, or higher, levels of risk of tetanus in newborn babies as at the two study sites."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4184 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nParoxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a chronic, not malignant, disease of the hematopoietic stem cells, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It is a rare disease with an estimated incidence of 1.3 new cases per one million individuals per year. The treatment of PNH has been largely empirical and symptomatic, with blood transfusions, anticoagulation, and supplementation with folic acid or iron. Eculizumab, a biological agent that inhibits complement cascade, was developed for preventing hemolytic anemia and severe thrombotic episodes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical benefits and harms of eculizumab for treating patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH).\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a comprehensive search strategy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946 to 15 May 2014), EMBASE (from 1980 to 25 June 2014), and LILACS (from 1982 to 25 June 2014). We did not apply any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of their publication status or language. No limits were applied with respect to period of follow-up. We excluded quasi-RCTs. We included trials comparing eculizumab with placebo or best available therapy. We included any patient with a confirmed diagnosis of PNH. Primary outcome was overall survival.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently performed a duplicate selection of eligible trials, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used a random-effects model for analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified one multicenter (34 sites) phase III RCT involving 87 participants. The trial compared eculizumab versus placebo, and was conducted in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia with 26 weeks of follow-up. This small trial had high risk of bias in many domains (attrition and selective reporting). It was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. No patients died during the study. By using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (scores can range from 0 to 100, with higher scores on the global health status and functioning scales indicating improvement), the trial showed improvement in health-related quality of life in patients treated with eculizumab (mean difference (MD) 19.4, 95% CI 8.25 to 30.55; P = 0.0007; low quality of evidence). By using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue instrument (scores can range from 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating improvement in fatigue), the trial showed a reduction in fatigue (MD 10.4, 95% CI 9.97 to 10.83; P = 0.00001; moderate quality of evidence) in the eculizumab group compared with placebo. Eculizumab compared with placebo showed a greater proportion of patients with transfusion independence: 51% (22/43) versus 0% (0/44); risk ratio (RR) 46.02, 95% CI 2.88 to 735.53; P = 0.007; moderate quality of evidence; and withdrawal for any reason: 4.7% (2/43) versus 22.72% (10/44); RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.88; P = 0.03; moderate quality of evidence. Due to the low rate of events observed, the included trial did not show any difference between eculizumab and placebo in terms of serious adverse events: 9.3% (4/43) versus 20.4% (9/44); RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.37; P = 0.16; low quality of evidence. We did not observe any difference between intervention and placebo for the most frequent adverse events. One participant receiving placebo showed an episode of thrombosis. The trial did not assess overall survival, transformation to myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myelogenous leukemia, or development or recurrence of aplastic anemia on treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review has detected an absence of evidence for eculizumab compared with placebo for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), in terms of overall survival, nonfatal thrombotic events, transformation to myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myelogenous leukemia, and development and recurrence of aplastic anemia on treatment. Current evidence indicates that compared with placebo, eculizumab increases health-related quality of life and increases transfusion independence. During the execution of the included trial, no patients died. Furthermore, the intervention seems to reduce fatigue and withdrawals for any reason. The safety profile of eculizumab is unclear. These conclusions are based on one small trial with risk of attrition and selective reporting bias.\nTherefore, prescription of eculizumab for treating patients with PNH can neither be supported nor rejected, unless new evidence from a large high quality trial alters this conclusion. Therefore, we urge the reader to interpret the trial results with much caution. Future trials on this issue should be conducted according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement by independent investigators, and using the Foundation of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research recommendations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The confidence in the results is moderate to low. The study had limitations in its design and execution, and was sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug that was assessed. Moreover, the limited number of patients included in the study led to imprecise results. Larger studies should provide more information about the effect of eculizumab in patients with paroxsymal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.\nThis plain language summary is current as of May 2014."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4185 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMore than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately or together (low-back and pelvic pain) and typically increase with advancing pregnancy, interfering with work, daily activities and sleep.\nObjectives\nTo update the evidence assessing the effects of any intervention used to prevent and treat low-back pain, pelvic pain or both during pregnancy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth (to 19 January 2015), and the Cochrane Back Review Groups' (to 19 January 2015) Trials Registers, identified relevant studies and reviews and checked their reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment, or combination of treatments, to prevent or reduce the incidence or severity of low-back pain, pelvic pain or both, related functional disability, sick leave and adverse effects during pregnancy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included 34 RCTs examining 5121 pregnant women, aged 16 to 45 years and, when reported, from 12 to 38 weeks’ gestation. Fifteen RCTs examined women with low-back pain (participants = 1847); six examined pelvic pain (participants = 889); and 13 examined women with both low-back and pelvic pain (participants = 2385). Two studies also investigated low-back pain prevention and four, low-back and pelvic pain prevention. Diagnoses ranged from self-reported symptoms to clinicians’ interpretation of specific tests. All interventions were added to usual prenatal care and, unless noted, were compared with usual prenatal care. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low, raising concerns about the confidence we could put in the estimates of effect.\nFor low-back pain\nResults from meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, inconsistency) that any land-based exercise significantly reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.25; participants = 645; studies = seven) and functional disability (SMD -0.56; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.23; participants = 146; studies = two). Low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) also suggested no significant differences in the number of women reporting low-back pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, versus usual prenatal care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17; participants = 374; studies = two).\nFor pelvic pain\nResults from a meta-analysis provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) of no significant difference in the number of women reporting pelvic pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, and usual prenatal care (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; participants = 374; studies = two).\nFor low-back and pelvic pain\nResults from meta-analyses provided moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations) that: an eight- to 12-week exercise program reduced the number of women who reported low-back and pelvic pain (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; participants = 1176; studies = four); land-based exercise, in a variety of formats, significantly reduced low-back and pelvic pain-related sick leave (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; participants = 1062; studies = two).\nThe results from a number of individual studies, incorporating various other interventions, could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. There was moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations or imprecision) from individual studies suggesting that osteomanipulative therapy significantly reduced low-back pain and functional disability, and acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improved pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from individual studies was largely of low quality (study design limitations, imprecision), and suggested that pain and functional disability, but not sick leave, were significantly reduced following a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) for low-back and pelvic pain.\nWhen reported, adverse effects were minor and transient.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-quality evidence that exercise (any exercise on land or in water), may reduce pregnancy-related low-back pain and moderate- to low-quality evidence suggesting that any exercise improves functional disability and reduces sick leave more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from single studies suggests that acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improves pregnancy-related pelvic pain, and osteomanipulative therapy or a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) may also be of benefit.\nClinical heterogeneity precluded pooling of results in many cases. Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in all but three meta-analyses, which did not improve following sensitivity analyses. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be ruled out.\nFurther evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and change the estimates. Studies would benefit from the introduction of an agreed classification system that can be used to categorise women according to their presenting symptoms, so that treatment can be tailored accordingly.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Low-back pain\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "When we combined the results from seven studies (645 women) that compared any land-based exercise with usual prenatal care, exercise interventions (lasting from five to 20 weeks) improved women's levels of low-back pain and disability."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4186 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEvery day children and adults die from acute community-acquired bacterial meningitis, particularly in low-income countries, and survivors risk deafness, epilepsy and neurological disabilities. Osmotic therapies may attract extra-vascular fluid and reduce cerebral oedema, and thus reduce death and improve neurological outcomes.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of osmotic therapies added to antibiotics for acute bacterial meningitis in children and adults on mortality, deafness and neurological disability.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to 17 February 2017), Embase (1974 to 17 February 2017), CINAHL (1981 to 17 February 2017), LILACS (1982 to 17 February 2017) and registers of ongoing clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.com, WHO ICTRP) (21 February 2017). We also searched conference abstracts and contacted researchers in the field (up to 12 December 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials testing any osmotic therapy in adults or children with acute bacterial meningitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results and selected trials for inclusion. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and grouped according to whether the participants received steroids or not. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included five trials with 1451 participants. Four trials evaluated glycerol against placebo, and one evaluated glycerol against 50% dextrose; in addition three trials evaluated dexamethasone and one trial evaluated acetaminophen (paracetamol) in a factorial design. Stratified analysis shows no effect modification with steroids; we present aggregate effect estimates.\nCompared to placebo, glycerol probably has little or no effect on death in people with bacterial meningitis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30; 5 studies, 1272 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but may reduce neurological disability (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00; 5 studies, 1270 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nGlycerol may have little or no effect on seizures during treatment for meningitis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30; 4 studies, 1090 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nGlycerol may reduce the risk of subsequent deafness (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.93; 5 studies, 922 participants; low to moderate-certainty evidence).\nGlycerol probably has little or no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.19; 3 studies, 607 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence on nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea is uncertain (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.47; 2 studies, 851 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGlycerol was the only osmotic therapy evaluated, and data from trials to date have not demonstrated an effect on death. Glycerol may reduce neurological deficiency and deafness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included five trials that compared glycerol with placebo in a total of 1451 patients with bacterial meningitis. In the studies steroids were often given as well, but this did not appear to modify any of the effects seen with glycerol.\nThis review detected no benefit from glycerol relating to death. There appeared to be marginal protection against deafness and against neurological disability. No effect on epileptic seizures at follow-up was noted. Glycerol was not associated with any severe adverse effects. The number of trials included was small and only two tested a large number of participants. All trials were from different healthcare settings and examined either adults or children."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4187 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nShivering after general anaesthesia is common. It is unpleasant but can also have adverse physiological effects. Alpha-2 (α-2) adrenergic agonist receptors, which can lead to reduced sympathetic activity and central regulation of vasoconstrictor tone, are a group of drugs that have been used to try to prevent postoperative shivering.\nObjectives\nTo assess the following: the effects of α-2 agonists on the prevention of shivering and subsequent complications after general anaesthesia in people undergoing surgery; the effects of α-2 agonists on the risk of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia; and whether any adverse effects are associated with these interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE on 13 June 2014. Our search terms were relevant to the review question and limited to studies that assessed shivering or hypothermia. We also carried out searches of clinical trials registers, and forward and backward citation tracking.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized studies, and cluster-randomized studies with adult participants undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia in which an α-2 agonist was compared with another α-2 agonist or a placebo for the prevention of shivering.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting a third review author in the case of disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including an assessment of risk of bias and use of GRADEpro software to interpret findings.\nMain results\nWe included 20 studies with 1401 surgical participants comparing an α-2 agonist against a control. Thirteen studies compared clonidine with a control, whilst seven compared dexmedetomidine with a control. The doses, methods, and time of administration varied between studies: three studies gave the drug orally or as an intravenous bolus preoperatively and nine intraoperatively; one study gave the drug as an infusion starting preoperatively and seven started at varying points from anaesthetic induction to the end of surgery. Whilst all the studies were described as randomized, many provided insufficient detail on methods used. We had anticipated that attempts would be made to reduce performance bias by blinding of personnel and participants, however this was detailed in only six of the papers. Similarly, in some studies detail was lacking on methods to reduce the risk of detection bias. We therefore downgraded the quality of evidence in our 'Summary of findings' table by one level for risk of bias using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nAll 20 included studies presented outcome data for postoperative shivering, and in meta-analysis α-2 agonists were shown to significantly reduce the risk of shivering (Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.43, P value < 0.0001). We found significant evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 80%) for this result that was not explained by sensitivity or subgroup analysis; we therefore downgraded the inconsistency of the evidence by one level. Although we did not feel that there were concerns with imprecision or indirectness of the data, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for the risk of publication bias following visual analysis of a funnel plot. Using GRADEpro, we rated the overall quality of the data for shivering as very low. Only one study reported the incidence of core hypothermia, whilst 12 studies measured core temperature. However, as the results for core temperature were reported in different styles, pooling the results was inappropriate. We found no studies with participant-reported outcomes such as experience of shivering or participant satisfaction. We found limited data for the outcomes of length of stay in the postanaesthetic care unit (three studies, 200 participants) and the following adverse effects: sedation (nine studies, 875 participants), bradycardia (eight studies, 716 participants), and hypotension (seven studies, 688 participants). Unpooled analysis suggested that sedation and bradycardia were significantly more common with dexmedetomidine than placebo, with all seven dexmedetomidine studies and none of the clonidine studies reporting statistically significantly higher levels of sedation as an adverse effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence that clonidine and dexmedetomidine can reduce postoperative shivering, but patients given dexmedetomidine may be more sedated. However, our assessment of the quality of this evidence is very low.\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": "Shivering after general anaesthesia is common. As well as being unpleasant for the patient, it can increase pain and affect oxygen levels. Alpha-2 (α-2) adrenergic agonists are a group of drugs that have been tested for the purpose of preventing or treating shivering. We aimed with this review to consider whether α-2 agonists can be administered to reduce shivering after surgery without causing serious side effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4188 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoarthritis, a common joint disorder, is one of the leading causes of disability. Chondroitin has emerged as a new treatment. Previous meta-analyses have shown contradictory results on the efficacy of chondroitin. This, in addition to the publication of more trials, necessitates a systematic review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefit and harm of oral chondroitin for treating osteoarthritis compared with placebo or a comparator oral medication including, but not limited to, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesics, opioids, and glucosamine or other \"herbal\" medications.\nSearch methods\nWe searched seven databases up to November 2013, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and Current Controlled Trials. We searched the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) websites for adverse effects. Trial registers were not searched.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials lasting longer than two weeks, studying adults with osteoarthritis in any joint, and comparing chondroitin with placebo, an active control such as NSAIDs, or other \"herbal\" supplements such as glucosamine.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed all title assessments, data extractions, and risk of bias assessments.\nMain results\nForty-three randomized controlled trials including 4,962 participants treated with chondroitin and 4,148 participants given placebo or another control were included. The majority of trials were in knee OA, with few in hip and hand OA. Trial duration varied from 1 month to 3 years. Participants treated with chondroitin achieved statistically significantly and clinically meaningful better pain scores (0-100) in studies less than 6 months than those given placebo with an absolute risk difference of 10% lower (95% confidence interval (CI), 15% to 6% lower; number needed to treat (NNT) = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8; n = 8 trials) (level of evidence, low; risk of bias, high); but there was high heterogeneity between the trials (T2 = 0.07; I2 = 70%, which was not easily explained by differences in risk of bias or study sample size). In studies longer than 6 months, the absolute risk difference for pain was 9% lower (95% CI 18% lower to 0%); n = 6 trials; T2 = 0.18; I2 = 83% ), again with low level of evidence.\nFor the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (WOMAC MCII Pain subscale) outcome, a reduction in knee pain by 20% was achieved by 53/100 in the chondroitin group versus 47/100 in the placebo group, an absolute risk difference of 6% (95% CI 1% to 11%), (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.24; T2 = 0.00; I2 = 0%) (n = 2 trials, 1253 participants; level of evidence, high; risk of bias, low).\nDifferences in Lequesne's index (composite of pain,function and disability) statistically significantly favoured chondroitin as compared with placebo in studies under six months, with an absolute risk difference of 8% lower (95% CI 12% to 5% lower; T2= 0.78; n = 7 trials) (level of evidence, moderate; risk of bias, unclear), also clinically meaningful. Loss of minimum joint space width in the chondroitin group was statistically significantly less than in the placebo group, with a relative risk difference of 4.7% less (95% CI 1.6% to 7.8% less; n = 2 trials) (level of evidence, high; risk of bias, low). Chondroitin was associated with statistically significantly lower odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo with Peto odds ratio of 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; n = 6 trials) (level of evidence, moderate). Chondroitin did not result in statistically significant numbers of adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo or another drug. Adverse events were reported in a limited fashion, with some studies providing data and others not.\nComparisons of chondroitin taken alone or in combination with glucosamine or another supplement showed a statistically significant reduction in pain (0-100) when compared with placebo or an active control, with an absolute risk difference of 10% lower (95% CI 14% to 5% lower); NNT = 4 (95% CI 3 to 6); T2 = 0.33; I2 = 91%; n = 17 trials) (level of evidence, low). For physical function, chondroitin in combination with glucosamine or another supplement showed no statistically significant difference from placebo or an active control, with an absolute risk difference of 1% lower (95% CI 6% lower to 3% higher with T2 = 0.04; n = 5 trials) (level of evidence, moderate). Differences in Lequesne's index statistically significantly favoured chondroitin as compared with placebo, with an absolute risk difference of 8% lower (95% CI, 12% to 4% lower; T2 = 0.12; n = 10 trials) (level of evidence, moderate). Chondroitin in combination with glucosamine did not result in statistically significant differences in the numbers of adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, or in the numbers of serious adverse events compared with placebo or with an active control.\nThe beneficial effects of chondroitin in pain and Lequesne's index persisted when evidence was limited to studies with adequate blinding or studies that used appropriate intention to treat (ITT) analyses. These beneficial effects were uncertain when we limited data to studies with appropriate allocation concealment or a large study sample (> 200) or to studies without pharmaceutical funding.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA review of randomized trials of mostly low quality reveals that chondroitin (alone or in combination with glucosamine) was better than placebo in improving pain in participants with osteoarthritis in short-term studies. The benefit was small to moderate with an 8 point greater improvement in pain (range 0 to 100) and a 2 point greater improvement in Lequesne's index (range 0 to 24), both likely clinically meaningful. These differences persisted in some sensitivity analyses and not others. Chondroitin had a lower risk of serious adverse events compared with control. More high-quality studies are needed to explore the role of chondroitin in the treatment of osteoarthritis. The combination of some efficacy and low risk associated with chondroitin may explain its popularity among patients as an over-the-counter supplement.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"This review shows that in people with osteoarthritis\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- Chondroitin may improve pain slightly in the short-term (less than 6 months);\n- Chondroitin improves knee pain by 20% in slightly more people;\n- Chondroitin probably improves quality of life slightly as measured by Lequesne's index (combined measure of pain, function, and disability);\n- Chondroitin has little or no difference in adverse and serious adverse events versus other agents; and\n- Chondroitin slightly slows down the narrowing of joint space on X-rays of the affected joint.\nWe identified a lot of studies in which unsound methods were used to assess the effects of chondroitin. For some outcomes, there was not enough data. In some studies, whose methodological quality was better, chondroitin showed no improvement in pain and in physical function. Other analyses based on different methodological quality criteria reported improvement in pain and physical functionality when chondroitin was given."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4189 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVitamin A deficiency is a significant public health problem in low- and middle-income countries. Vitamin A supplementation provided to infants less than six months of age is one of the strategies to improve the nutrition of infants at high risk of vitamin A deficiency and thus potentially reduce their mortality and morbidity.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effect of synthetic vitamin A supplementation in infants one to six months of age in low- and middle-income countries, irrespective of maternal antenatal or postnatal vitamin A supplementation status, on mortality, morbidity and adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 5 March 2016), Embase (1980 to 5 March 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to 5 March 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised, individually or cluster randomised trials involving synthetic vitamin A supplementation compared to placebo or no intervention provided to infants one to six months of age were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed the studies for eligibility and assessed their risk of bias and collected data on outcomes.\nMain results\nThe review included 12 studies (reported in 22 publications). The included studies assigned 24,846 participants aged one to six months to vitamin A supplementation or control group. There was no effect of vitamin A supplementation for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality based on seven studies that included 21,339 (85%) participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.25; I2 = 0%; test for heterogeneity: P = 0.79; quality of evidence: moderate). Also, there was no effect of vitamin A supplementation on mortality or morbidity due to diarrhoea and respiratory tract infection. There was an increased risk of bulging fontanelle within 24 to 72 hours of supplementation in the vitamin A group compared to control (RR 3.10, 95% CI 1.89 to 5.09; I2 = 9%, test for heterogeneity: P = 0.36; quality of evidence: high). There was no reported subsequent increased risk of death, convulsions or irritability in infants who developed bulging fontanelle after vitamin A supplementation, and it resolved in most cases within 72 hours. There was no increased risk of other adverse effects such as vomiting, irritability, diarrhoea, fever and convulsions in the vitamin A supplementation group compared to control. Vitamin A supplementation did not have any statistically significant effect on vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.06; I2 = 27%; test for heterogeneity: P = 0.25; quality of evidence: moderate).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no convincing evidence that vitamin A supplementation for infants one to six months of age results in a reduction in infant mortality or morbidity in low- and middle-income countries. There is an increased risk of bulging fontanelle with vitamin A supplementation in this age group; however, there were no reported subsequent complications because of this adverse effect.\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 review authors searched the medical literature to identify relevant studies that compared the effect of vitamin A supplementation versus control on death, illnesses, and side effects in randomly selected infants aged one to six months. The literature is current to 5 March 2016. The search identified 12 studies that involved 24,846 infants. Most of the studies were well conducted and included children from Asia, Africa, and Latin America."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4190 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFocal abnormalities most commonly acquired within the uterine cavity include endometrial polyps (arising from the endometrium) and submucous fibroids (arising from the myometrium). These benign abnormalities can cause several problems, including abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and subfertility. Two-dimensional saline infusion sonography (2D SIS) is a minimally invasive test that can be used to diagnose these pathologies, but it is less accurate than hysteroscopy, which is a more invasive procedure by which an endoscope allows direct visualisation of the uterine cavity. Three-dimensional (3D) SIS appears to enhance sonographic visualisation within the uterine cavity, thereby offering a potentially more accurate minimally invasive diagnostic test.\nObjectives\nPrimary objectives\n• To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D SIS (index test 1) compared with 2D SIS for the diagnosis of focally growing lesions (presence or not) in women with AUB or subfertility, with hysteroscopy performed as the reference test.\n• To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 2D+3D SIS (index test 2) compared with 2D SIS for the diagnosis of focally growing lesions (presence or not) in women with AUB or subfertility, with hysteroscopy performed as the reference test. In this case, any abnormality on either modality was regarded as a positive result (‘OR’ approach).\nSecondary objectives\n• To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D SIS (index test 1) compared with 2D SIS according to type of abnormality and discrimination between uterine polyps and submucous fibroids in women with AUB or subfertility, with hysteroscopy and histology used as the reference.\n• To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 2D+3D SIS (index test 2) compared with 2D SIS according to type of abnormality and discrimination between uterine polyps and submucous fibroids in women with AUB or subfertility, with hysteroscopy and histology used as the reference.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register and CGFG Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Screening reference lists of appropriate studies was also performed. We screened for eligibility all studies identified from inception until March 2016. We performed searches with no date or language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nThe population of interest consisted of premenopausal women with AUB or subfertility and postmenopausal women with AUB. Diagnostic test accuracy studies, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the accuracy of both 2D SIS and 3D SIS for the diagnosis of acquired intracavitary abnormalities with hysteroscopy used as the reference standard. In light of the lack of data for 3D SIS, we also included studies that evaluated the accuracy of 3D SIS alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors read all potentially eligible references after performing a first screening by title and abstract (LLN and FJRH). They independently extracted data to construct 2×2 tables from eligible studies and assessed studies for methodological quality using the QUADAS-2 tool (revised tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies). To describe and visually present results, we produced in RevMan forest plots showing pairs of sensitivity and specificity together with 95% confidence intervals from each study, as well as raw receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots. We displayed paired analyses in an ROC plot by linking sensitivity-specificity pairs from each study by using a dashed line. To compare 3D SIS versus 2D SIS, we restricted analyses to studies that provided 2×2 tables for both tests and used the bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity.\nMain results\nThirteen studies (1053 women) reported the accuracy of 3D SIS for focal uterine abnormalities; 11 of these (846 women) were suitable for meta-analysis, and eight reported accuracy according to the type of focal abnormality. The design of the included studies seems applicable. The main problem involving the quality of included studies is insufficient reporting of study methods, resulting in unclear risk of bias for several of the quality domains assessed. Therefore, we considered the overall quality of the evidence as low. The summary estimate (11 studies reporting absence or presence of abnormality at 3D SIS) for sensitivity was 94.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90.6% to 96.9%) and for specificity 99.4% (95% CI 96.2% to 99.9%). Meta-analysis of the eight studies (N = 716) directly comparing 2D SIS versus 3D SIS showed summary sensitivity of 96.9% (95% CI 91.9% to 98.8%) and summary specificity of 99.5% (95% CI 96.1% to 100%) for 3D SIS. For 2D SIS, summary sensitivity was 90.9% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.8%) and summary specificity was 96.3% (95% CI 86.1% to 99.1%). The difference in accuracy between 2D SIS and 3D SIS was non-significant (P values of 0.07 for sensitivity and 0.10 for specificity).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence suggests that 3D SIS may be very accurate in detecting intracavitary abnormalities. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between 2D SIS and 3D SIS. Summary sensitivity and summary specificity are higher for 3D SIS, but margins of improvement are limited because 2D SIS is already very accurate. When the technology and appropriate expertise are available, 3D SIS offers an alternative to 2D SIS. Both 2D SIS and 3D SIS should be considered alternatives to diagnostic hysteroscopy when intracavitary pathology is suspected in subfertile women and in those with abnormal uterine bleeding.\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": "Low-quality evidence suggests that 3D SIS may be very accurate in detecting polyps and fibroids. Our analysis revealed no clear differences between 2D SIS and 3D SIS. Summary results are higher for 3D SIS but margins of improvement are limited because 2D SIS is already very accurate. Results show that 2D SIS missed a fibroid or polyp in 9 of 100 women and 3D SIS missed a polyp or fibroid in 3 of 100 women who had them. In 4 of 100 women, 2D SIS indicated the presence of polyps or fibroids when there were none, and in less than 1 in 100 women, 3D SIS was wrong. In theory, if both tests were used in a group of 1000 women with abnormal menstrual bleeding, 300 with fibroids or polyps, 27 of the 300 women with polyps/fibroids will be missed by 2D SIS, and 9 of 300 will be missed by 3D SIS.\n3D SIS is an alternative to 2D SIS for which the technology and appropriate expertise are available. Both 2D SIS and 3D SIS should be considered alternatives to diagnostic hysteroscopy when intracavitary pathology is suspected in subfertile women and in those with abnormal uterine bleeding."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4191 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nApical vaginal prolapse is the descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available, but there are no guidelines to recommend which is the best.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of any surgical intervention compared to another intervention for the management of apical vaginal prolapse.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 14 March 2022).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse (any site).\nMain results\nWe included 59 RCTs (6705 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodology, and inconsistency.\nVaginal procedures compared to sacral colpopexy for vault prolapse (seven RCTs, n=613; six months to f four-year review)\nAwareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.21, 4 RCTs, n = 346, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 8% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 18% (10% to 32%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures.\nSurgery for recurrent prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.04; 6 RCTs, n = 497, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 6% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, 14% (8% to 25%) are likely to require it after vaginal procedures.\nProlapse on examination is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.65; 5 RCTs, n = 422; I2 = 24%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 18% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, between 23% and 47% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures.\nOther outcomes:\nStress urinary incontinence (SUI) was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe effect of vaginal procedures on dyspareunia was uncertain (RR 3.44, 95% CI 0.61 to 19.53; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence).\nVaginal hysterectomy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (six RCTS, 554 women, one to seven year review)\nAwareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.10 to 9.98; 2 RCTs, n = 200, very low-certainty evidence).\nSurgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.54; 5 RCTs, n = 403; I2 = 9%, low-certainty evidence).\nProlapse on examination- there was little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.11; 2 RCTs n = 230; I2 = 9%, moderate-certainty evidence).\nVaginal hysteropexy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (two RCTs, n = 388, 1-four-year review)\nAwareness of prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.55 95% CI 0.21 to 1.44; 1 RCT n = 257, low-certainty evidence).\nSurgery for recurrent prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.44; 2 RCTs, n = 345; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence).\nProlapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 2 RCTs n =367; I2 =9%, moderate-certainty evidence).\nVaginal hysterectomy compared to vaginal hysteropexy (four RCTs, n = 620, 6 months to five-year review)\nAwareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.0 95% CI 0.44 to 2.24; 2 RCTs, n = 365, I2 = 0% moderate-quality certainty evidence).\nSurgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.60; 3 RCTs, n = 443; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence).\nProlapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.61; 2 RCTs n =361; I2 =74%, low-certainty evidence).\nOther outcomes:\nTotal vaginal length (TVL) was shorter after vaginal hysterectomy (mean difference (MD) 0.89cm 95% CI 0.49 to 1.28cm shorter; 3 RCTs, n=413, low-certainty evidence).\nThere is probably little or no difference between the groups in terms of operating time, dyspareunia and stress urinary incontinence.\nOther analyses\nThere were no differences identified for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (4 RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (3 RCTs), pectopexy versus other apical suspensions (5 RCTs), continuous versus interrupted sutures at sacral colpopexy (2 RCTs), absorbable versus permanent sutures at apical suspensions (5 RCTs) or different routes of sacral colpopexy. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is associated with shorter admission time than open approach (3 RCTs) and quicker operating time than robotic approach (3 RCTs). Transvaginal mesh does not confer any advantage over native tissue repair, however is associated with a 17.5% rate of mesh exposure (7 RCTs).\nAuthors' conclusions\nSacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, and postoperative SUI than a variety of vaginal interventions.\nThe limited evidence does not support the use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse.\nThere were no differences in primary outcomes for different routes of sacral colpopexy. However, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter operating time than robotic approach, and shorter admission than open approach.\nThere were no significant differences between vaginal hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse nor between vaginal hysteropexy and abdominal hysteropexy/cervicopexy.\nThere were no differences detected between absorbable and non absorbable sutures however, the certainty of evidence for mesh exposure and dyspareunia 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": "Fifty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated 6705 who underwent surgery for apical vaginal prolapse. The most common comparisons were between vaginal surgery and sacral colpopexy (an abdominal procedure suspending the upper vagina to the sacrum with a graft) (seven RCTs), vaginal surgery with mesh versus without (seven RCTs), vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal suspensions (six RCTs), and different types or routes of sacral colpopexy (six RCTs). The evidence is current to March 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4192 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe burden of poor sexual and reproductive health (SRH) worldwide is substantial, disproportionately affecting those living in low- and middle-income countries. Targeted client communication (TCC) delivered via mobile devices (MD) (TCCMD) may improve the health behaviours and service use important for sexual and reproductive health.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of TCC via MD on adolescents' knowledge, and on adolescents’ and adults' sexual and reproductive health behaviour, health service use, and health and well-being.\nSearch methods\nIn July/August 2017, we searched five databases including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched two trial registries. A search update was carried out in July 2019 and potentially relevant studies are awaiting classification.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of TCC via MD to improve sexual and reproductive health behaviour, health service use, and health and well-being. Eligible comparators were standard care or no intervention, non-digital TCC, and digital non-targeted communication.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, although data extraction and risk of bias assessments were carried out by one person only and cross-checked by a second. We have presented results separately for adult and adolescent populations, and for each comparison.\nMain results\nWe included 40 trials (27 among adult populations and 13 among adolescent populations) with a total of 26,854 participants. All but one of the trials among adolescent populations were conducted in high-income countries. Trials among adult populations were conducted in a range of high- to low-income countries. Among adolescents, nine interventions were delivered solely through text messages; four interventions tested text messages in combination with another communication channel, such as emails, multimedia messaging, or voice calls; and one intervention used voice calls alone. Among adults, 20 interventions were delivered through text messages; two through a combination of text messages and voice calls; and the rest were delivered through other channels such as voice calls, multimedia messaging, interactive voice response, and instant messaging services.\nAdolescent populations\nTCCMD versus standard care\nTCCMD may increase sexual health knowledge (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.71; low-certainty evidence). TCCMD may modestly increase contraception use (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). The effects on condom use, antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, and health service use are uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. The effects on abortion and STI rates are unknown due to lack of studies.\nTCCMD versus non-digital TCC (e.g. pamphlets)\nThe effects of TCCMD on behaviour (contraception use, condom use, ART adherence), service use, health and wellbeing (abortion and STI rates) are unknown due to lack of studies for this comparison.\nTCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication\nThe effects on sexual health knowledge, condom and contraceptive use are uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Interventions may increase health service use (attendance for STI/HIV testing, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.40; low-certainty evidence). The intervention may be beneficial for reducing STI rates (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence), but the confidence interval encompasses both benefit and harm. The effects on abortion rates and on ART adherence are unknown due to lack of studies.\nWe are uncertain whether TCCMD results in unintended consequences due to lack of evidence.\nAdult populations\nTCCMD versus standard care\nFor health behaviours, TCCMD may modestly increase contraception use at 12 months (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.48) and may reduce repeat abortion (RR 0.68 95% CI 0.28 to 1.66), though the confidence interval encompasses benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). The effect on condom use is uncertain. No study measured the impact of this intervention on STI rates. TCCMD may modestly increase ART adherence (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence, and standardised mean difference 0.44, 95% CI -0.14 to 1.02, low-certainty evidence). TCCMD may modestly increase health service utilisation (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 85%), with mixed results according to type of service utilisation (i.e. attendance for STI testing; HIV treatment; voluntary male medical circumcision (VMMC); VMMC post-operative visit; post-abortion care). For health and well-being outcomes, there may be little or no effect on CD4 count (mean difference 13.99, 95% CI -8.65 to 36.63; low-certainty evidence) and a slight reduction in virological failure (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence).\nTCCMD versus non-digital TCC\nNo studies reported STI rates, condom use, ART adherence, abortion rates, or contraceptive use as outcomes for this comparison. TCCMD may modestly increase in service attendance overall (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.35, low certainty evidence), however the confidence interval encompasses benefit and harm.\nTCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication\nNo studies reported STI rates, condom use, ART adherence, abortion rates, or contraceptive use as outcomes for this comparison. TCCMD may increase service utilisation overall (RR: 1.71, 95% CI 0.67-4.38, low certainty evidence), however the confidence interval encompasses benefit and harm and there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 72%), with mixed results according to type of service utilisation (STI/HIV testing, and VMMC).\nFew studies reported on unintended consequences. One study reported that a participant withdrew from the intervention as they felt it compromised their undisclosed HIV status.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTCCMD may improve some outcomes but the evidence is of low certainty. The effect on most outcomes is uncertain/unknown due to very low certainty evidence or lack of evidence. High quality, adequately powered trials and cost effectiveness analyses are required to reliably ascertain the effects and relative benefits of TCC delivered by mobile devices. Given the sensitivity and stigma associated with sexual and reproductive health future studies should measure unintended consequences, such as partner violence or breaches of confidentiality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Aim of this review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We assessed the effect of sending targeted messages by mobile devices to young people and adults about their sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unintended pregnancies are important causes of illness and early death worldwide."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4193 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic pain (pain lasting three months or more) is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. Common types (excluding headache) include back pain, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain. Access to traditional face-to-face therapies can be restricted by healthcare resources, geography, and cost. Remote technology-based delivery of psychological therapies has the potential to overcome treatment barriers. However, their therapeutic effectiveness compared to traditional delivery methods requires further investigation.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of remotely-delivered psychological therapies compared to active control, waiting list, or treatment as usual for the management of chronic pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 29 June 2022. We also searched clinical trials registers and reference lists. We conducted a citation search of included trials to identify any further eligible trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs in adults (≥ 18 years old) with chronic pain. Interventions included psychological therapies with recognisable psychotherapeutic content or based on psychological theory. Trials had to have delivered therapy remote from the therapist (e.g. Internet, smartphone application) and involve no more than 30% contact time with a clinician. Comparators included treatment as usual (including waiting-list controls) and active controls (e.g. education).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe included 32 trials (4924 participants) in the analyses. Twenty-five studies delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) to participants, and seven delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Participants had back pain, musculoskeletal pain, opioid-treated chronic pain, mixed chronic pain, hip or knee osteoarthritis, spinal cord injury, fibromyalgia, provoked vestibulodynia, or rheumatoid arthritis. We assessed 25 studies as having an unclear or high risk of bias for selective reporting. However, across studies overall, risk of bias was generally low. We downgraded evidence certainty for primary outcomes for inconsistency, imprecision, and study limitations. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Adverse events were inadequately reported or recorded across studies. We report results only for studies in CBT here.\nCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus treatment as usual (TAU)\nPain intensity\nImmediately after treatment, CBT likely demonstrates a small beneficial effect compared to TAU (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.16; 20 studies, 3206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants receiving CBT are probably more likely to achieve a 30% improvement in pain intensity compared to TAU (23% versus 11%; risk ratio (RR) 2.15, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.85; 5 studies, 1347 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They may also be more likely to achieve a 50% improvement in pain intensity (6% versus 2%; RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.66; 4 studies, 1229 participants), but the evidence is of low certainty.\nAt follow-up, there is likely little to no difference in pain intensity between CBT and TAU (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.09; 8 studies, 959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence comparing CBT to TAU on achieving a 30% improvement in pain is very uncertain (40% versus 24%; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.53; 1 study, 69 participants). No evidence was available regarding a 50% improvement in pain.\nFunctional disability\nImmediately after treatment, CBT may demonstrate a small beneficial improvement compared to TAU (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.22; 14 studies, 2672 participants; low-certainty evidence). At follow-up, there is likely little to no difference between treatments (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 3 studies, 461 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nQuality of life\nImmediately after treatment, CBT may not have resulted in a beneficial effect on quality of life compared to TAU, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.11; 7 studies, 1423 participants). There is likely little to no difference between CBT and TAU on quality of life at follow-up (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.05; 3 studies, 352 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events\nImmediately after treatment, evidence about the number of people experiencing adverse events is very uncertain (34% in TAU versus 6% in CBT; RR 6.00, 95% CI 2.2 to 16.40; 1 study, 140 participants). No evidence was available at follow-up.\nCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus active control\nPain intensity\nImmediately after treatment, CBT likely demonstrates a small beneficial effect compared to active control (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.04; 3 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence at follow-up is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.30; 1 study, 127 participants). No evidence was available for a 30% or 50% pain intensity improvement.\nFunctional disability\nImmediately after treatment, there may be little to no difference between CBT and active control on functional disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.02; 2 studies, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence at follow-up is very uncertain (MD 3.40, 95% CI -1.15 to 7.95; 1 study, 127 participants).\nQuality of life\nImmediately after treatment, there is likely little to no difference in CBT and active control (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.66; 3 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence at follow-up is very uncertain (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 1 study, 127 participants).\nAdverse events\nImmediately after treatment, the evidence comparing CBT to active control is very uncertain (2% versus 0%; RR 3.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.84; 1 study, 135 participants). No evidence was available at follow-up.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, evidence about remotely-delivered psychological therapies is largely limited to Internet-based delivery of CBT. We found evidence that remotely-delivered CBT has small benefits for pain intensity (moderate certainty) and functional disability (moderate to low certainty) in adults experiencing chronic pain. Benefits were not maintained at follow-up. Our appraisal of quality of life and adverse events outcomes post-treatment were limited by study numbers, evidence certainty, or both. We found limited research (mostly low to very low certainty) exploring other psychological therapies (i.e. ACT). More high-quality studies are needed to assess the broad translatability of psychological therapies to remote delivery, the different delivery technologies, treatment longevity, comparison with active control, and adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why consider remotely-delivered psychological therapies for chronic pain?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Chronic pain is pain that lasts three months or longer. It is a common experience that can significantly impact on a person’s everyday life and well-being. Psychological therapies have been found to improve mood and pain-related disability. The most common psychological approach for chronic pain is cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which focuses on the interrelationship between thoughts, feelings, and actions, to support symptom management.\nUnfortunately, gaining access to psychological therapies may be difficult. There are limited numbers of qualified healthcare professionals providing these services, and some people may find it physically difficult to attend clinics. Technologies (such as mobile phones, computers, and the Internet) may offer new ways of delivering psychological therapies directly to people within their everyday environment and without a healthcare professional being present. This approach (known as remote delivery) has the potential to help more people access therapy."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4194 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIntraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation may decrease pain in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the optimal method to administer the local anaesthetic is unknown.\nObjectives\nTo determine the optimal local anaesthetic agent, the optimal timing, and the optimal delivery method of the local anaesthetic agent used for intraperitoneal instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (WHO ICTRP) to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials for assessment of benefit and comparative non-randomised studies for the assessment of treatment-related harms.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different methods of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials with 798 participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy randomised to different methods of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only people with low anaesthetic risk. The comparisons included in the trials that met the eligibility criteria were the following; comparison of one local anaesthetic agent with another local anaesthetic agent (three trials); comparison of timing of delivery (six trials); comparison of different methods of delivery of the anaesthetic agent (two trials); comparison of location of the instillation of the anaesthetic agent (one trial); three trials reported mortality and morbidity.\nThere were no mortalities or serious adverse events in either group in the following comparisons: bupivacaine (0/100 (0%)) versus lignocaine (0/106 (0%)) (one trial; 206 participants); just after creation of pneumoperitoneum (0/55 (0%)) versus end of surgery (0/55 (0%)) (two trials; 110 participants); just after creation of pneumoperitoneum (0/15 (0%)) versus after the end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) (one trial; 30 participants); end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) versus after the end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) (one trial; 30 participants).\nNone of the trials reported quality of life, the time taken to return to normal activity, or the time taken to return to work. The differences in the proportion of people who were discharged as day-surgery and the length of hospital stay were imprecise in all the comparisons included that reported these outcomes (very low quality evidence). There were some differences in the pain scores on the visual analogue scale (1 to 10 cm) but these were neither consistent nor robust to fixed-effect versus random-effects meta-analysis or sensitivity analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe currently available evidence is inadequate to determine the effects of one method of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation compared with any other method of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation in low anaesthetic risk individuals undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified 12 randomised clinical trials involving 798 people undergoing planned laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The trials compared different methods addressing the various controversies mentioned above. The choice of the method of administration of the local anaesthetic was determined by a method similar to the toss of a coin so that the treatments compared were conducted in participants who were as similar as possible."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4195 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease (NAFLD) varies between 19% and 33% in different populations. NAFLD decreases life expectancy and increases the risks of liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and requirement for liver transplantation. There is uncertainty surrounding the relative benefits and harms of various lifestyle interventions for people with NAFLD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the comparative benefits and harms of different lifestyle interventions in the treatment of NAFLD through a network meta-analysis, and to generate rankings of the different lifestyle interventions according to their safety and efficacy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until February 2021 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with NAFLD.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in people with NAFLD, whatever the method of diagnosis, age, and diabetic status of participants, or presence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to perform a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and to calculate the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and rate ratios (RaRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available-participant analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. However, the data were too sparse for the clinical outcomes. We therefore performed only direct comparisons (head-to-head comparisons) with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 59 randomised clinical trials (3631 participants) in the review. All but two trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 33 different interventions, ranging from advice to supervised exercise and special diets, or a combination of these and no additional intervention were compared in these trials. The reference treatment was no active intervention. Twenty-eight trials (1942 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The follow-up ranged from 1 month to 24 months. The remaining trials did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review.\nThe follow-up period in the trials that reported clinical outcomes was 2 months to 24 months. During this short follow-up period, clinical events related to NAFLD such as mortality, liver cirrhosis, liver decompensation, liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related mortality were sparse. This is probably because of the very short follow-up periods. It takes a follow-up of 8 years to 28 years to detect differences in mortality between people with NAFLD and the general population. It is therefore unlikely that differences by clinical outcomes will be noted in trials with less than 5 years to 10 years of follow-up.\nIn one trial, one participant developed an adverse event. There were no adverse events in any of the remaining participants in this trial, or in any of the remaining trials, which seemed to be directly related to the intervention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the lifestyle interventions compared with no additional intervention (to general public health advice) on any of the clinical outcomes after a short follow-up period of 2 months to 24 months in people with nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease.\nAccordingly, high-quality randomised clinical trials with adequate follow-up are needed. We propose registry-based randomised clinical trials or cohort multiple randomised clinical trials (a study design in which multiple interventions are trialed within large longitudinal cohorts of participants to gain efficiencies and align trials more closely to standard clinical practice), comparing aerobic exercise and dietary advice versus standard of care (exercise and dietary advice received as part of national health promotion). The reason for the choice of aerobic exercise and dietary advice is the impact of these interventions on indirect outcomes which may translate to clinical benefit. The outcomes in such trials should be mortality, health-related quality of life, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver transplantation, and resource use measures including costs of intervention and decreased healthcare use after a minimum follow-up of eight years, to find meaningful differences in the clinically important outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Date of literature search\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "February 2021."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4196 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAs a consequence of their condition, people with sickle cell disease are at high risk of developing an acute infection of the pulmonary parenchyma called community-acquired pneumonia. Many different bacteria can cause this infection and antibiotic treatment is generally needed to resolve it. There is no standardized approach to antibiotic therapy and treatment is likely to vary from country to country. Thus, there is a need to identify the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches (monotherapy or combined) for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (01 September 2016), which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched LILACS (1982 to 01 September 2016), African Index Medicus (1982 to 20 October 2016) and WHO ICT Registry (20 October 2016).\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for published or unpublished randomized controlled trials.\nData collection and analysis\nWe intended to summarise data by standard Cochrane methodologies, but no eligible randomized controlled trials were identified.\nMain results\nWe were unable to find any randomized controlled trials on antibiotic treatment approaches for community-acquired pneumonia in people with sickle cell disease.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe updated review was unable to identify randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the optimum antibiotic treatment for this condition. The trials regarding this issue should be structured and reported according to the CONSORT statement for improving the quality of reporting of efficacy and improved reports of harms in clinical research. Triallists should consider including the following outcomes in new trials: number of days to become afebrile; mortality; onset of pain crisis or complications of sickle cell disease following community-acquired pneumonia; diagnosis; hospitalization (admission rate and length of hospital stay); respiratory failure rate; and number of participants receiving a blood transfusion.\nThere are no trials included in the review and we have not identified any relevant trials up to September 2016. We therefore do not plan to update this review until new trials are published.\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 were not able to find any trials to include in this review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4197 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nPrimary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life.\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalisation for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nResult findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis.The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.\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 heart is responsible for pumping blood throughout the body. It has four valves that control the blood flow within it. One of the valves is the aortic valve that controls the flow of blood from the left ventricle chamber to the body. Aortic valve stenosis is a disease characterised by the narrowing of this valve. This is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Its incidence rises with age and 2% to 7% of adults over 65 years old have aortic valve stenosis. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease and it is known to have a long asymptomatic period for several decades. When it manifests clinically, symptoms such as syncope (brief lapse of consciousness), angina and dyspnoea (shortness of breath) may lead to death. Some prospective and retrospective trials have shown that statins can delay the progression of aortic valve stenosis. Statins are considered very useful drugs to lower high cholesterol."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4198 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany media are commercially available for culturing pre-implantation human embryos in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. It is unknown which culture medium leads to the best success rates after ART.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different human pre-implantation embryo culture media in used for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register and the NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination databases from January 1985 to March 2015. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies, review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials which randomised women, oocytes or embryos and compared any two commercially available culture media for human pre-implantation embryos in an IVF or ICSI programme.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data. We sought additional information from the authors if necessary. We assessed the quality of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. The primary review outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy.\nMain results\nWe included 32 studies in this review. Seventeen studies randomised women (total 3666), three randomised cycles (total 1018) and twelve randomised oocytes (over 15,230). It was not possible to pool any of the data because each study compared different culture media.\nOnly seven studies reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Four of these studies found no evidence of a difference between the media compared, for either day three or day five embryo transfer. The data from the fifth study did not appear reliable.\nSix studies reported clinical pregnancy rate. One of these found a difference between the media compared, suggesting that for cleavage-stage embryo transfer, Quinn's Advantage was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates than G5 (odds ratio (OR) 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 2.16; 692 women). This study was available only as an abstract and the quality of the evidence was low.\nWith regards to adverse effects, three studies reported multiple pregnancies and six studies reported miscarriage. None of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. None of the studies reported on the health of offspring.\nMost studies (22/32) failed to report their source of funding and none described their methodology in adequate detail. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as very low for nearly all comparisons, the main limitations being imprecision and poor reporting of study methods.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAn optimal embryo culture medium is important for embryonic development and subsequently the success of IVF or ICSI treatment. There has been much controversy about the most appropriate embryo culture medium. Numerous studies have been performed, but no two studies compared the same culture media and none of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any specific culture medium. Properly designed and executed randomised trials are necessary.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to March 2015. We included 32 randomised controlled trials of a wide variety of different commercially available culture media in women undergoing IVF or ICSI. Sixteen studies randomised women (total 3666), three randomised cycles (total 1018) and twelve randomised oocytes (over 15,230). Most studies (22/32) failed to report their source of funding."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4199 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the optimal frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.\nA 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing, or both, of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), which does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. Routine scale and polish treatments are typically provided in general dental practice settings. The technique may also be referred to as prophylaxis, professional mechanical plaque removal or periodontal instrumentation.\nThis review updates a version published in 2013.\nObjectives\n1. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health.\n2. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervals for periodontal health.\n3. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health when the treatment is provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or dental hygienists).\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health’s Trials Register (to 10 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments, with or without oral hygiene instruction, in healthy dentate adults without severe periodontitis. We excluded split-mouth trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (or standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses. We contacted study authors when necessary to obtain missing information. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included two studies with 1711 participants in the analyses. Both studies were conducted in UK general dental practices and involved adults without severe periodontitis who were regular attenders at dental appointments. One study measured outcomes at 24 months and the other at 36 months. Neither study measured adverse effects, changes in attachment level, tooth loss or halitosis.\nComparison 1: routine scaling and polishing versus no scheduled scaling and polishing\nTwo studies compared planned, regular interval (six- and 12-monthly) scale and polish treatments versus no scheduled treatment. We found little or no difference between groups over a two- to three-year period for gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis when comparing six-monthly scale and polish treatment versus no scheduled treatment was –0.01 (95% CI –0.13 to 0.11; two trials, 1087 participants), and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was –0.04 (95% CI –0.16 to 0.08; two trials, 1091 participants).\nRegular planned scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over two to three years when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). The SMD for six-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was –0.32 (95% CI –0.44 to –0.20; two trials, 1088 participants) and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was –0.19 (95% CI –0.31 to –0.07; two trials, 1088 participants). The clinical importance of these small reductions is unclear.\nParticipants' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were higher when receiving six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments compared to no scheduled treatment, but the certainty of the evidence is low.\nComparison 2: routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervals\nTwo studies compared routine six-monthly scale and polish treatments versus 12-monthly treatments. We found little or no difference between groups over two to three years for the outcomes of gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis was 0.03 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.15; two trials, 1090 participants; I2 = 0%). Six- monthly scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over a two- to three-year period when compared with 12-monthly treatments (SMD –0.13 (95% CI –0.25 to –0.01; 2 trials, 1086 participants; high-certainty evidence). The clinical importance of this small reduction is unclear.\nThe comparative effects of six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments on patients' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).\nComparison 3: routine scaling and polishing provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or hygienists)\nNo studies evaluated this comparison.\nThe review findings in relation to costs were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor adults without severe periodontitis who regularly access routine dental care, routine scale and polish treatment makes little or no difference to gingivitis, probing depths and oral health-related quality of life over two to three years follow-up when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference in plaque levels over two years (low-certainty evidence). Routine scaling and polishing reduces calculus levels compared with no routine scaling and polishing, with six-monthly treatments reducing calculus more than 12-monthly treatments over two to three years follow-up (high-certainty evidence), although the clinical importance of these small reductions is uncertain. Available evidence on the costs of the treatments is uncertain. The studies did not assess adverse effects.\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 two studies with a total of 1711 participants in our review. Both studies involved adults without severe periodontitis who were regular attenders at dental appointments in the UK. The studies were conducted in general dental practices, which is the most appropriate setting to evaluate 'routine scale and polish' treatments. One study measured outcomes at 24 months and one study at 36 months."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4200 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke is a major cause of long-term disability in adults. Several systematic reviews have shown that a higher intensity of training can lead to better functional outcomes after stroke. Currently, the resources in inpatient settings are not always sufficient and innovative methods are necessary to meet these recommendations without increasing healthcare costs. A resource efficient method to augment intensity of training could be to involve caregivers in exercise training. A caregiver-mediated exercise programme has the potential to improve outcomes in terms of body function, activities, and participation in people with stroke. In addition, caregivers are more actively involved in the rehabilitation process, which may increase feelings of empowerment with reduced levels of caregiver burden and could facilitate the transition from rehabilitation facility (in hospital, rehabilitation centre, or nursing home) to home setting. As a consequence, length of stay might be reduced and early supported discharge could be enhanced.\nObjectives\nTo determine if caregiver-mediated exercises (CME) improve functional ability and health-related quality of life in people with stroke, and to determine the effect on caregiver burden.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (October 2015), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to October 2015), Embase (1980 to December 2015), CINAHL (1982 to December 2015), SPORTDiscus (1985 to December 2015), three additional databases (two in October 2015, one in December 2015), and six additional trial registers (October 2015). We also screened reference lists of relevant publications and contacted authors in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing CME to usual care, no intervention, or another intervention as long as it was not caregiver-mediated, aimed at improving motor function in people who have had a stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials. One review author extracted data, and assessed quality and risk of bias, and a second review author cross-checked these data and assessed quality. We determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE. The small number of included studies limited the pre-planned analyses.\nMain results\nWe included nine trials about CME, of which six trials with 333 patient-caregiver couples were included in the meta-analysis. The small number of studies, participants, and a variety of outcome measures rendered summarising and combining of data in meta-analysis difficult. In addition, in some studies, CME was the only intervention (CME-core), whereas in other studies, caregivers provided another, existing intervention, such as constraint-induced movement therapy. For trials in the latter category, it was difficult to separate the effects of CME from the effects of the other intervention.\nWe found no significant effect of CME on basic ADL when pooling all trial data post intervention (4 studies; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.44; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence) or at follow-up (2 studies; mean difference (MD) 2.69, 95% CI -8.18 to 13.55; P = 0.63; low-quality evidence). In addition, we found no significant effects of CME on extended ADL at post intervention (two studies; SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.35; P = 0.64; low-quality evidence) or at follow-up (2 studies; SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.39; P = 0.45; low-quality evidence).\nCaregiver burden did not increase at the end of the intervention (2 studies; SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.37; P = 0.86; moderate-quality evidence) or at follow-up (1 study; MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.71 to 1.91; P = 0.37; very low-quality evidence).\nAt the end of intervention, CME significantly improved the secondary outcomes of standing balance (3 studies; SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; P = 0.002; low-quality evidence) and quality of life (1 study; physical functioning: MD 12.40, 95% CI 1.67 to 23.13; P = 0.02; mobility: MD 18.20, 95% CI 7.54 to 28.86; P = 0.0008; general recovery: MD 15.10, 95% CI 8.44 to 21.76; P < 0.00001; very low-quality evidence). At follow-up, we found a significant effect in favour of CME for Six-Minute Walking Test distance (1 study; MD 109.50 m, 95% CI 17.12 to 201.88; P = 0.02; very low-quality evidence). We also found a significant effect in favour of the control group at the end of intervention, regarding performance time on the Wolf Motor Function test (2 studies; MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.23 to -1.21; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence). We found no significant effects for the other secondary outcomes (i.e. patient: motor impairment, upper limb function, mood, fatigue, length of stay and adverse events; caregiver: mood and quality of life).\nIn contrast to the primary analysis, sensitivity analysis of CME-core showed a significant effect of CME on basic ADL post intervention (2 studies; MD 9.45, 95% CI 2.11 to 16.78; P = 0.01; moderate-quality evidence).\nThe methodological quality of the included trials and variability in interventions (e.g. content, timing, and duration), affected the validity and generalisability of these observed results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low- to moderate-quality evidence that CME may be a valuable intervention to augment the pallet of therapeutic options for stroke rehabilitation. Included studies were small, heterogeneous, and some trials had an unclear or high risk of bias. Future high-quality research should determine whether CME interventions are (cost-)effective.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "What is the effect of performing exercises with a caregiver after stroke on outcome for people with stroke and burden for caregivers?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4201 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatent ductus arteriosus (PDA) complicates the clinical course of preterm infants and increases the risk of adverse outcomes. Indomethacin has been the standard treatment to close a PDA but is associated with renal, gastrointestinal, and cerebral side effects. Ibuprofen has less effect on blood flow velocity to important organs.\nObjectives\nPrimary objectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of ibuprofen compared to placebo/no intervention, or other cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor drugs in the prevention of PDA in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 17 October 2018), Embase (1980 to 17 October 2018), and CINAHL; 1982 to 17 October 2018). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with placebo/no intervention or other cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor drugs to prevent PDA in preterm or low birth weight infants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted outcomes data including presence of PDA on day three or four of life (after 72 hours of treatment), need for surgical ligation or rescue treatment with cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, mortality, cerebral, renal, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal complications. We performed meta-analyses and reported treatment estimates as typical mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and, if statistically significant, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) or to harm (NNTH), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed between-study heterogeneity by the I-squared test (I²). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nIn this updated analysis, we included nine trials (N = 1070 infants) comparing prophylactic ibuprofen (IV or oral) with placebo/no intervention or indomethacin. Ibuprofen (IV or oral) probably decreases the risk of PDA on day 3 or 4 (typical RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.48; typical RD -0.26, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.21; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 9 trials; N = 1029) (moderate-quality evidence). In the control group, the spontaneous closure rate was 58% by day 3 to 4 of age. In addition, ibuprofen probably decreases the need for rescue treatment with cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors (typical RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26; typical RD -0.27, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.22; NNTB 4; 95% CI 3 to 5),and the need for surgical ductal ligation (typical RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.00; NNTB 33, 95% CI 20 to infinity; 7 trials; N = 925) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a possible decrease in the risk of grade 3 or 4 intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) in infants receiving prophylactic ibuprofen (typical RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; I² = 34%; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to- 0.00; I² = 60%; 7 trials; N = 925) (moderate-quality evidence). High quality evidence showed increased risk for oliguria (typical RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.02; typical RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11; NNTH 17, 95% CI 9 to 100; 4 trials; N = 747). Low quality results from four studies (N = 202) showed that administering oral ibuprofen may decrease the risk of PDA (typical RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74) and may increase risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (NNTH 7, 95% CI 4 to 25). No evidence of a difference was identified for mortality, any intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), or chronic lung disease.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review shows that prophylactic use of ibuprofen, compared to placebo or no intervention, probably decreases the incidence of patent ductus arteriosus, the need for rescue treatment with cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, and for surgical ductal closure. Adverse effects associated with ibuprofen (IV or oral) included increased risks for oliguria, increase in serum creatinine levels, and increased risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage. There was a reduced risk for intraventricular haemorrhage (grade III - IV) but no evidence of a difference in mortality, chronic lung disease, necrotising enterocolitis, or time to reach full feeds. In the control group, the patent ductus arteriosus had closed spontaneously by day 3 or 4 in 58% of neonates. Prophylactic treatment exposes a large proportion of infants unnecessarily to a drug that has important side effects without conferring any important short-term benefits. Current evidence does not support the use of ibuprofen for prevention of patent ductus arteriosus. Until long-term follow-up results of the trials included in this review have been published, no further trials of prophylactic ibuprofen are recommended.\nA new approach to patent ductus arteriosus management is an early targeted treatment based on echocardiographic criteria within the first 72 hours of life, that have a high sensitivity for diagnosing a patent ductus arteriosus that is unlikely to close spontaneously. Such trials are currently ongoing in many parts of the world. Results of such trials will be included in updates of our \"Ibuprofen for treatment of PDA\" 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": "More than 1000 infants have been enrolled in trials of ibuprofen for prevention of a PDA; most studies were of small sample size."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4202 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous leg ulcers (VLUs) are a serious manifestation of chronic venous disease affecting up to 3% of the adult population. This typically recalcitrant and recurring condition significantly impairs quality of life, and its treatment places a heavy financial burden upon healthcare systems. The longstanding mainstay treatment for VLUs is compression therapy. Surgical removal of incompetent veins reduces the risk of ulcer recurrence. However, open surgery is an unpopular option amongst people with VLU, and many people are unsuitable for it. The efficacy of the newer, minimally-invasive endovenous techniques has been established in uncomplicated superficial venous disease, and these techniques can also be used in the management of VLU. When used with compression, endovenous ablation aims to further reduce pressure in the veins of the leg, which may impact ulcer healing.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of superficial endovenous ablation on the healing and recurrence of venous leg ulcers and the quality of life of people with venous ulcer disease.\nSearch methods\nIn April 2022 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scrutinised reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions on the language of publication, but there was a restriction on publication year from 1998 to April 2022 as superficial endovenous ablation is a comparatively new technology.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing endovenous ablative techniques with compression versus compression therapy alone for the treatment of VLU were eligible for inclusion. Studies needed to have assessed at least one of the following primary review outcomes related to objective measures of ulcer healing such as: proportion of ulcers healed at a given time point; time to complete healing; change in ulcer size; proportion of ulcers recurring over a given time period or at a specific point; or ulcer-free days. Secondary outcomes of interest were patient-reported quality of life, economic data and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, carried out risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool, and assessed GRADE certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nThe previous version of this review found no RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria. In this update, we identified two eligible RCTs and included them in a meta-analysis. There was a total of 506 participants with an active VLU, with mean durations of 3.1 months ± 1.1 months in the EVRA trial and 60.5 months ± 96.4 months in the VUERT trial. Both trials randomised participants to endovenous treatment and compression or compression alone, however the compression alone group in the EVRA trial received deferred endovenous treatment (after ulcer healing or from six months).\nThere is high-certainty evidence that combined endovenous ablation and compression compared with compression therapy alone, or compression with deferred endovenous treatment, improves time to complete ulcer healing (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.47; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 466 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence that the proportion of ulcers healed at 90 days is probably higher with combined endovenous ablation and compression compared with compression therapy alone or compression with deferred endovenous treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 466 participants). There is low-certainty evidence showing an unclear effect on ulcer recurrence at one year in people with healed ulcers with combined endovenous treatment and compression when compared with compression alone or compression with deferred endovenous treatment (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.48; I2 = 78%; 2 studies, 460 participants). There is also low-certainty evidence that the median number of ulcer-free days at one year may not differ (306 (interquartile range (IQR) 240 to 328) days versus 278 (IQR 175 to 324) days) following combined endovenous treatment and compression when compared with compression and deferred endovenous treatment; (1 study, 450 participants).\nThere is low-certainty evidence of an unclear effect in rates of thromboembolism between groups (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.51 to 7.97; I2 = 78%, 2 studies, 506 participants). The addition of endovenous ablation to compression is probably cost-effective at one year (99% probability at GBP 20,000/QALY; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEndovenous ablation of superficial venous incompetence in combination with compression improves leg ulcer healing when compared with compression alone. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence. There is moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that it is probably cost-effective at one year and low certainty evidence of unclear effects on recurrence and complications. Further research is needed to explore the additional benefit of endovenous ablation in ulcers of greater than six months duration and the optimal modality of endovenous ablation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review updates our previous review. The evidence is up to date to April 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4203 | [
{
"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: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We were not able to find any randomised controlled studies assessing treatment for any dental complications in people with sickle cell disease."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4204 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVitamins and minerals are essential for growth and maintenance of a healthy body, and have a role in the functioning of almost every organ. Multiple interventions have been designed to improve micronutrient deficiency, and food fortification is one of them.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of food fortification with multiple micronutrients on health outcomes in the general population, including men, women and children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched electronic databases up to 29 August 2018, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register and Cochrane Public Health Specialised Register; MEDLINE; Embase, and 20 other databases, including clinical trial registries. There were no date or language restrictions. We checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for additional papers to be considered for inclusion.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies that assessed the impact of food fortification with multiple micronutrients (MMNs). Primary outcomes included anaemia, micronutrient deficiencies, anthropometric measures, morbidity, all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes included potential adverse outcomes, serum concentration of specific micronutrients, serum haemoglobin levels and neurodevelopmental and cognitive outcomes. We included food fortification studies from both high-income and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened, extracted and quality-appraised the data from eligible studies. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5 software. We used random-effects meta-analysis for combining data, as the characteristics of study participants and interventions differed significantly. We set out the main findings of the review in 'Summary of findings' tables, using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified 127 studies as relevant through title/abstract screening, and included 43 studies (48 papers) with 19,585 participants (17,878 children) in the review. All the included studies except three compared MMN fortification with placebo/no intervention. Two studies compared MMN fortification versus iodised salt and one study compared MMN fortification versus calcium fortification alone. Thirty-six studies targeted children; 20 studies were conducted in LMICs. Food vehicles used included staple foods, such as rice and flour; dairy products, including milk and yogurt; non-dairy beverages; biscuits; spreads; and salt. Fourteen of the studies were fully commercially funded, 13 had partial-commercial funding, 14 had non-commercial funding and two studies did not specify the source of funding. We rated all the evidence as of low to very low quality due to study limitations, imprecision, high heterogeneity and small sample size.\nWhen compared with placebo/no intervention, MMN fortification may reduce anaemia by 32% (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.84; 11 studies, 3746 participants; low-quality evidence), iron deficiency anaemia by 72% (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.39; 6 studies, 2189 participants; low-quality evidence), iron deficiency by 56% (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.60; 11 studies, 3289 participants; low-quality evidence); vitamin A deficiency by 58% (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.62; 6 studies, 1482 participants; low-quality evidence), vitamin B2 deficiency by 64% (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.68; 1 study, 296 participants; low-quality evidence), vitamin B6 deficiency by 91% (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.38; 2 studies, 301 participants; low-quality evidence), vitamin B12 deficiency by 58% (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.71; 3 studies, 728 participants; low-quality evidence), weight-for-age z-scores (WAZ) (mean difference (MD) 0.1, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17; 8 studies, 2889 participants; low-quality evidence) and weight-for-height/length z-score (WHZ/WLZ) (MD 0.1, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.18; 6 studies, 1758 participants; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of MMN fortification on zinc deficiency (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.08; 5 studies, 1490 participants; low-quality evidence) and height/length-for-age z-score (HAZ/LAZ) (MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.18; 8 studies, 2889 participants; low-quality evidence). Most of the studies in this comparison were conducted in children.\nSubgroup analyses of funding sources (commercial versus non-commercial) and duration of intervention did not demonstrate any difference in effects, although this was a relatively small number of studies and the possible association between commercial funding and increased effect estimates has been demonstrated in the wider health literature. We could not conduct subgroup analysis by food vehicle and funding; since there were too few studies in each subgroup to draw any meaningful conclusions.\nWhen we compared MMNs versus iodised salt, we are uncertain about the effect of MMN fortification on anaemia (R 0.86, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.01; 1 study, 88 participants; very low-quality evidence), iron deficiency anaemia (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.83; 2 studies, 245 participants; very low-quality evidence), iron deficiency (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17; 1 study, 88 participants; very low-quality evidence) and vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55; 2 studies, 363 participants; very low-quality evidence). Both of the studies were conducted in children.\nOnly one study conducted in children compared MMN fortification versus calcium fortification. None of the primary outcomes were reported in the study.\nNone of the included studies reported on morbidity, adverse events, all-cause or cause-specific mortality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence from this review suggests that MMN fortification when compared to placebo/no intervention may reduce anaemia, iron deficiency anaemia and micronutrient deficiencies (iron, vitamin A, vitamin B2 and vitamin B6). We are uncertain of the effect of MMN fortification on anthropometric measures (HAZ/LAZ, WAZ and WHZ/WLZ). There are no data to suggest possible adverse effects of MMN fortification, and we could not draw reliable conclusions from various subgroup analyses due to a limited number of studies in each subgroup. We remain cautious about the level of commercial funding in this field, and the possibility that this may be associated with higher effect estimates, although subgroup analysis in this review did not demonstrate any impact of commercial funding. These findings are subject to study limitations, imprecision, high heterogeneity and small sample sizes, and we rated most of the evidence low to very low quality. and hence no concrete conclusions could be drawn from the findings of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Does multiple micronutrient fortification improve health?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4205 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIntrauterine insemination (IUI), combined with ovarian stimulation (OS), has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for infertile couples. Several agents for ovarian stimulation, combined with IUI, have been proposed, but it is still not clear which agents for stimulation are the most effective. This is an update of the review, first published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of agents for ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination in infertile ovulatory women.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trial registers from their inception to November 2020. We performed reference checking and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included truly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different agents for ovarian stimulation combined with IUI for infertile ovulatory women concerning couples with unexplained infertility. mild male factor infertility and minimal to mild endometriosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.\nMain results\nIn this updated review, we have included a total of 82 studies, involving 12,614 women. Due to the multitude of comparisons between different agents for ovarian stimulation, we highlight the seven most often reported here.\nGonadotropins versus anti-oestrogens (13 studies)\nFor live birth, the results of five studies were pooled and showed a probable improvement in the cumulative live birth rate for gonadotropins compared to anti-oestrogens (odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.79; I2 = 30%; 5 studies, 1924 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following anti-oestrogens is assumed to be 22.8%, the chance following gonadotropins would be between 23.7% and 34.6%. The pooled effect of seven studies revealed that we are uncertain whether gonadotropins lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with anti-oestrogens (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17; I2 = 58%; 7 studies, 2139 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAromatase inhibitors versus anti-oestrogens (8 studies)\nOne study reported live birth rates for this comparison. We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors improve live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens (OR 0.75, CI 95% 0.51 to 1.11; 1 study, 599 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following anti-oestrogens is 23.4%, the chance following aromatase inhibitors would be between 13.5% and 25.3%. The results of pooling four studies revealed that we are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors compared with anti-oestrogens lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate (OR 1.28, CI 95% 0.61 to 2.68; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1000 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nGonadotropins with GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) agonist versus gonadotropins alone (4 studies)\nNo data were available for live birth. The pooled effect of two studies revealed that we are uncertain whether gonadotropins with GnRH agonist lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared to gonadotropins alone (OR 2.53, 95% CI 0.82 to 7.86; I2 = 0; 2 studies, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nGonadotropins with GnRH antagonist versus gonadotropins alone (14 studies)\nThree studies reported live birth rate per couple, and we are uncertain whether gonadotropins with GnRH antagonist improve live birth rate compared to gonadotropins (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.52 to 4.39; I2 = 81%; 3 studies, 419 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following gonadotropins alone is 25.7%, the chance following gonadotropins combined with GnRH antagonist would be between 15.2% and 60.3%. We are also uncertain whether gonadotropins combined with GnRH antagonist lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with gonadotropins alone (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.28; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 2095 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nGonadotropins with anti-oestrogens versus gonadotropins alone (2 studies)\nNeither of the studies reported data for live birth rate. We are uncertain whether gonadotropins combined with anti-oestrogens lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with gonadotropins alone, based on one study (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.1; 1 study, 230 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAromatase inhibitors versus gonadotropins (6 studies)\nTwo studies revealed that aromatase inhibitors may decrease live birth rate compared with gonadotropins (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.71; I2=0%; 2 studies, 651 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following gonadotropins alone is 31.9%, the chance of live birth following aromatase inhibitors would be between 13.7% and 25%. We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors compared with gonadotropins lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.06 to 8.17; I2=77%; 3 studies, 731 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins versus anti-oestrogens with gonadotropins (8 studies)\nWe are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors combined with gonadotropins improve live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens plus gonadotropins (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.3 8 to 2.54; I2 = 69%; 3 studies, 708 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following anti-oestrogens plus gonadotropins is 13.8%, the chance following aromatase inhibitors plus gonadotropins would be between 5.7% and 28.9%. We are uncertain of the effect of aromatase inhibitors combined with gonadotropins compared to anti-oestrogens combined with gonadotropins on multiple pregnancy rate (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.37; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 901 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the available results, gonadotropins probably improve cumulative live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens (moderate-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins may also improve cumulative live birth rate when compared with aromatase inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). From the available data, there is no convincing evidence that aromatase inhibitors lead to higher live birth rates compared to anti-oestrogens. None of the agents compared lead to significantly higher multiple pregnancy rates. Based on low-certainty evidence, there does not seem to be a role for different combined therapies, nor for adding GnRH agonists or GnRH antagonists in IUI programs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Aromatase inhibitors plus gonadotropins versus anti-oestrogens plus gonadotropins (8 studies)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We don’t know if aromatase inhibitors plus gonadotropins make any difference to:\n· live birth rate; or\n· multiple pregnancy rate."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4206 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous access is an essential part of caring for the sick neonate. However, problems such as contamination of fluids with bacteria, endotoxins and particulates have been associated with intravenous infusion therapy. Intravenous in-line filters claim to be an effective strategy for the removal of bacteria, endotoxins and particulates associated with intravenous therapy in adults and are increasingly being recommended for use in neonates.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of intravenous in-line filters on morbidity and mortality in neonates.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE (from 1966 to May, 2015), EMBASE (from 1980 to May, 2015), CINAHL (from 1982 to May 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 5). We did not impose any language restrictions. Further searching included cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared the use of intravenous in-line filters with placebo or nothing in neonates.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group throughout. We checked titles and abstracts identified from the search. We obtained the full text of all studies of possible relevance. We independently assessed the trials for their methodological quality and subsequent inclusion in the review. We contacted authors for further information as needed. Statistical analysis followed the procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.\nMain results\nThere were four eligible studies that recruited a total of 704 neonates. This review of low to very low quality evidence found that the use of in-line filters compared with unfiltered fluids for intravenous infusion had no statistically significant difference in effectiveness on overall mortality (typical RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.04; two studies, 530 infants), proven and suspect septicaemia (typical RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.27; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; two studies, 530 infants), or other secondary outcomes (including local phlebitis and thrombus, necrotising enterocolitis, duration of cannula patency, length of stay in hospital, number of catheters inserted and financial costs).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of intravenous in-line filters to prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Septicaemia and illness, deaths or problems with the intravenous lines were no different with or without a filter."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4207 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are frequently treated with surgical reconstruction with grafts, frequently patella tendon or hamstrings. Interference screws are often used to secure the graft in bone tunnels in the femur and tibia. This review examines whether bioabsorbable interference screws give better results than metal interference screws when used for graft fixation in ACL reconstruction.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in ACL reconstruction.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, trial registers and reference lists of articles. Date of search: January 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing bioabsorbable with metallic interferences screws in ACL reconstruction. The main outcomes sought were subjective-rated knee function, failure of treatment, and activity level.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors selected eligible trials, independently assessed risk of bias, and cross-checked data. Data were pooled whenever relevant and possible. Requests for further information were sent to the original study authors.\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials (11 randomised and one quasi-randomised) involving a total of 944 participants, and reporting follow-up results for 774. Participants in the 12 trials underwent ACL reconstruction with either hamstring tendon grafts (five trials) or patellar tendon grafts (seven trials). Trials participants were randomly allocated to bioabsorbable or metallic interference screws for graft fixation in both femur and tibia (seven trials); femur only (three trials); tibia only (one trial); location was not reported in the remaining trial. A variety of materials was used for the bioabsorbable screws, Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) being the most common. The metallic screws, where reported, were titanium.\nAll trials were at high risk of bias, which invariably included performance bias. Seven trials were at high risk of attrition bias and eight at high risk of reporting bias. The quasi-randomised trial was assessed as being at high risk for selection bias. Based on these study limitations and insufficiency of the available data, we judged the quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low.\nThe majority of the available data for patient-reported knee function was presented as Lysholm scores (0 to 100; higher scores = better function). There was very low quality but consistent evidence of no clinically important differences between the two groups in Lysholm scores at 12 months follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to 1.32; three trials, 168 participants); 24 months (MD 0.35, 95% CI -1.27 to 1.98; three trials, 113 participants) or five or more years follow-up (MD 1.23, 95% CI -2.00 to 4.47; two trials, 71 participants). This lack of between-group differences was also reported for Lysholm scores in several trials that did not provide sufficient data for pooling as well as for other self-reported knee function scores reported in several trials.\nTreatment failure was represented by the summed data for implant breakage during surgery and major postoperative complications (implant failure, graft rupture, symptomatic foreign body reactions, effusion and treated arthrofibrosis and related conditions) that were usually described in the trial reports as requiring further substantive treatment. There is very low-quality evidence of greater treatment failure in the bioabsorbable screw group (60/451 versus 29/434; risk ratio (RR) 1.94 favouring metallic screw fixation, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.93; 885 participants, 11 studies). In a population with an assumed risk (based on the median control group risk) of 56 participants per 1000 having treatment failure after metallic screw fixation, this equates to 53 more (95% CI 17 to 108 more) per 1000 participants having treatment failure after bioabsorbable screw fixation. All 16 intraoperative complications in the bioabsorbable screw group were implant breakages upon screw insertion. Treatment failure defined as postoperative complications only still favoured the metallic screw group but the 95% CI also included the potential for a greater risk of treatment failure after metallic screw fixation: 44/451 versus 29/434; RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.23. Based on the assumed risk of 56 participants per 1000 having postoperative treatment failure after metallic screw fixation, this equates to 25 more (95% CI 4 fewer and 69 more) per 1000 participants having this outcome after bioabsorbable screw fixation.\nThere was very low-quality evidence of very similar activity levels in the two groups at 12 and 24 months follow-up measured via the Tegner score (0 to 10; higher scores = greater activity): 12 months (MD 0.08, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.55; 122 participants, two studies); 24 months (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.57; 72 participants, two studies).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-quality evidence of no difference in self-reported knee function and levels of activity between bioabsorbable and metallic interference screws for graft fixation in ACL reconstruction. There is very low-quality evidence that bioabsorbable screws may be associated with more overall treatment failures, including implant breakage during surgery. Further research does not appear to be a priority, but if undertaken, should also examine costs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The limited evidence does not show that knee function and activity levels are any better after bioabsorbable screws compared with metal screws. However, such screws may break during surgery and may result in a greater risk of later treatment failure. Further research does not appear to be a priority but if undertaken should also examine costs."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4208 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antibiotics act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as steroids, antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in combined preparations with steroids.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of adding a topical steroid to topical antibiotics in the treatment of people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving participants (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks.\nThe interventions were any combination of a topical antibiotic agent(s) of any class and a topical corticosteroid (steroid) of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure.\nThe two main comparisons were topical antibiotic and steroid compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nOur primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks and after four weeks; health-related quality of life; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity.\nMain results\nWe included 17 studies addressing 11 treatment comparisons. A total of 1901 participants were included, with one study (40 ears) not reporting the number of participants recruited, which we therefore could not account for. No studies reported health-related quality of life. The main comparisons were:\n1. Topical antibiotics with steroids versus placebo or no treatment\nThree studies (210 participants) compared a topical antibiotic-steroid to saline or no treatment. Resolution of discharge was not reported at between one to two weeks. One study (50 'high-risk' children) reported results at more than four weeks by ear and we could not adjust the results to by person. The study reported that 58% (of 41 ears) resolved with topical antibiotics compared with 50% (of 26 ears) with no treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (123 participants) noted minor side effects in 16% of participants in both the intervention and placebo groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study (123 participants) reported no change in bone-conduction hearing thresholds and reported no difference in tinnitus or balance problems between groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study (50 participants) reported serious complications, but it was not clear which group these patients were from, or whether the complications occurred pre- or post-treatment. One study (123 participants) reported that no side effects occurred in any participants (very low-certainty evidence).\n2. Topical antibiotics with steroids versus topical antibiotics (same antibiotics) only\nFour studies (475 participants) were included in this comparison. Three studies (340 participants) compared topical antibiotic-steroid combinations to topical antibiotics alone. The evidence suggests little or no difference in resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 82.7% versus 76.6% (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.21; 335 participants; 3 studies (4 study arms); low-certainty evidence). No results for resolution of discharge after four weeks were reported. One study (110 participants) reported local itchiness but as there was only one episode in each group it is uncertain whether there is a difference (very low-certainty evidence). Three studies (395 participants) investigated suspected ototoxicity but it was not possible to determine whether there were differences between the groups for this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported serious complications.\n3. Topical antibiotics with steroids compared to topical antibiotics alone (different antibiotics)\nNine studies (981 participants plus 40 ears) evaluated a range of comparisons of topical non-quinolone antibiotic-steroid combinations versus topical quinolone antibiotics alone. Resolution of discharge may be greater with quinolone topical antibiotics alone at between one to two weeks compared with non-quinolone topical antibiotics with steroids: 82.1% versus 63.2% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 7 studies; 903 participants, low-certainty evidence). Results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks were not reported. One study (52 participants) reported usable data on ear pain, two studies (419 participants) reported hearing outcomes and one study (52 participants) reported balance problems. It was not possible to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups for these outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (149 participants) reported no serious complications (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics with steroids in improving the resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-certainty evidence available. Amongst this uncertainty, we found no evidence that the addition of steroids to topical antibiotics affects the resolution of ear discharge. There is also low-certainty evidence that some types of topical antibiotics (without steroids) may be better than topical antibiotic/steroid combinations in improving resolution of discharge. There is also uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of different types of antibiotics; it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not quinolones are better or worse than aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What this means\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Steroids combined with non-quinolone antibiotics may not be as good as quinolone antibiotics alone to stop ear discharge after one to two weeks (low-certainty evidence).\nToo few robust studies have been conducted for us to know whether:\n- topical antibiotics plus steroids are better or worse than no treatment or a placebo;\n- adding steroids to a topical antibiotic affects the antibiotic's effectiveness or has an impact on unwanted effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4209 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchodilators are the mainstay for symptom relief in the management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Aclidinium bromide is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) that differs from tiotropium by its higher selectivity for M3 muscarinic receptors with a faster onset of action. However, the duration of action of aclidinium is shorter than for tiotropium. It has been approved as maintenance therapy for stable, moderate to severe COPD, but its efficacy and safety in the management of COPD is uncertain compared to other bronchodilators.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide in stable COPD.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), as well as www.clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website and Almirall Clinical Trials Registry and Results. We contacted Forest Laboratories for any unpublished trials and checked the reference lists of identified articles for additional information. The last search was performed on 7 April 2014 for CAGR and 11 April 2014 for other sources.\nSelection criteria\nParallel-group RCTs of aclidinium bromide compared with placebo, long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) or LAMA in adults with stable COPD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought missing data from the trial authors as well as manufacturers of aclidinium. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and reported both with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall quality of evidence.\nMain results\nThis review included 12 multicentre RCTs randomly assigning 9547 participants with stable COPD. All the studies were industry-sponsored and had similar inclusion criteria with relatively good methodological quality. All but one study included in the meta-analysis were double-blind and scored low risk of bias. The study duration ranged from four weeks to 52 weeks. Participants were more often males, mainly Caucasians, mean age ranging from 61.7 to 65.6 years, and with a smoking history of 10 or more pack years. They had moderate to severe symptoms at randomisation; the mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was between 46% and 57.6% of the predicted normal value, and the mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (SGRQ) ranged from 45.1 to 50.4 when reported.\nThere was no difference between aclidinium and placebo in all-cause mortality (low quality) and number of patients with exacerbations requiring a short course of oral steroids or antibiotics, or both (moderate quality). Aclidinium improved quality of life by lowering the SGRQ total score with a mean difference of -2.34 (95% CI -3.18 to -1.51; I2 = 48%, 7 trials, 4442 participants) when compared to placebo. More patients on aclidinium achieved a clinically meaningful improvement of at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.70; I2 = 34%; number needed to treat (NNT) = 10, 95% CI 8 to 15, high quality evidence) over 12 to 52 weeks than on placebo. Aclidinium also resulted in a significantly greater improvement in pre-dose FEV1 than placebo with a mean difference of 0.09 L (95% CI 0.08 to 0.10; I2 = 39%, 9 trials, 4963 participants). No trials assessed functional capacity. Aclidinium reduced the number of patients with exacerbations requiring hospitalisation by 4 to 20 fewer per 1000 over 4 to 52 weeks (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.88; I2 = 0%, 10 trials, 5624 people; NNT = 77, 95% CI 51 to 233, high quality evidence) compared to placebo. There was no difference in non-fatal serious adverse events (moderate quality evidence) between aclidinium and placebo.\nCompared to tiotropium, aclidinium did not demonstrate significant differences for exacerbations requiring oral steroids or antibiotics, or both, exacerbation-related hospitalisations and non-fatal serious adverse events (very low quality evidence). Inadequate data prevented the comparison of aclidinium to formoterol or other LABAs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAclidinium is associated with improved quality of life and reduced hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe stable COPD compared to placebo. Overall, aclidinium did not significantly reduce mortality, serious adverse events or exacerbations requiring oral steroids or antibiotics, or both.\nCurrently, the available data are insufficient and of very low quality in comparisons of the efficacy of aclidinium versus tiotropium. The efficacy of aclidinium versus LABAs cannot be assessed due to inaccurate data. Thus additional trials are recommended to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium compared to other LAMAs or LABAs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of aclidinium inhalers used by people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4210 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFew strategies are effective for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Buflomedil is a vasoactive agent that has been used for peripheral arterial diseases. Research studies have suggested that buflomedil may have beneficial effects in people with cerebral vascular diseases, including acute ischaemic stroke, however it has not been approved for treating stroke in clinical practice.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of buflomedil for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), EMBASE (1980 to February 2014), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database (July 2014), Web of Science (including Conference Proceedings Citation Index Science (CPCI-S)) (July 2014), and four Chinese databases (February 2014). We also searched five ongoing trials registers and reference lists of the included trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of buflomedil in people with acute ischaemic stroke. The primary outcome of this review was long-term death or disability/dependence. Other outcomes included short-term death, short-term disability, neurological deficits, and adverse events. We included trials comparing buflomedil versus a placebo control, trials comparing buflomedil plus usual medical care versus usual medical care alone, or those comparing buflomedil plus another intervention versus that intervention alone. We excluded trials comparing buflomedil alone with other potentially active intervention(s).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently scrutinised citations, selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included trials. We reported risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data. We performed meta-analysis, using a random-effects model, for death and improvement of neurological deficits. Data for disability/dependence and adverse events were not suitable for meta-analysis thus we reported these narratively. We performed subgroup analyses for time of recruitment since stroke, delivery route, daily dose, and treatment duration.\nMain results\nWe included 26 trials (2756 participants), all conducted in China. All participants were inpatients within the first few days after stroke onset (mean age 58 to 75 years and male proportion 45% to 80%). Most trials delivered buflomedil intravenously, with a daily dose of 200 mg for 14 days. The study quality was generally poor and many trials were poorly reported.\nOnly one trial reported long-term death and disability, where stroke survivors in the buflomedil group had a lower risk of suffering 'death or disability' than those in the control group (200 participants, RR 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.94). All 26 trials assessed outcomes by the end of treatment (eight trials with 1056 participants reported death, one trial with 85 participants reported disability, and 26 trials with 2756 participants reported neurological deficits), but there was no robust evidence for any of these short-term outcomes. Seventeen trials (1899 participants) investigated the presence of adverse events during the treatment, of which six trials (853 participants) reported \"no significant adverse event in any participants\" and the other 11 trials (1046 participants) reported a total of 38 adverse events in the buflomedil group and two events in the control group. In general, for each of these outcomes the quality of evidence was low according to the GRADE principles.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence on the efficacy or safety of buflomedil to support its use for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Given these uncertainties, the data support the rationale for an adequately powered RCT of buflomedil in people with acute ischaemic stroke.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence about the effect of buflomedil on death, disability, and neurological functions in people with acute ischaemic stroke."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4211 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDietary supplements with ginseng, or ginseng alone, are widely used for a broad range of conditions, including erectile dysfunction. Ginseng is particularly popular in Asian countries. Individual studies assessing its effects are mostly small, of uneven methodological quality and have unclear results.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of ginseng on erectile dysfunction.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted systematic searches on multiple electronic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and loco-regional databases of east Asia, from their inceptions to 30 January 2021 without restrictions on language and publication status. Handsearches included conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that evaluated the use of any type of ginseng as a treatment for erectile dysfunction compared to placebo or conventional treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently classified studies and three authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies with 587 men with mild to moderate erectile dysfunction, aged from 20 to 70 years old. The studies all compared ginseng to placebo. We found only short-term follow-up data (up to 12 weeks).\nPrimary outcomes\nGinseng appears to have a trivial effect on erectile dysfunction when compared to placebo based on the Erectile Function Domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-15 instrument (scale: 1 to 30, higher scores imply better function; mean difference [MD] 3.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.79 to 5.25; I² = 0%; 3 studies; low certainty evidence) assuming a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 4.\nGinseng probably also has a trivial effect on erectile function when compared to placebo based on the IIEF-5 instrument (scale: 1 to 25, higher scores imply better function; MD 2.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.88; I² = 0%; 3 studies; moderate certainty evidence) assuming a MCID of 5.\nGinseng may have little to no effect on adverse events compared to placebo (risk ratio [RR] 1.45, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.03; I² = 0%; 7 studies; low certainty evidence). Based on 86 adverse events per 1000 men in the placebo group, this would correspond to 39 more adverse events per 1000 (95% CI 27 fewer to 174 more).\nSecondary outcomes\nGinseng may improve men's self-reported ability to have intercourse (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.69; I² = 23%; 6 studies; low certainty evidence). Based on 207 per 1000 men self-reporting the ability to have intercourse in the placebo group, this would correspond to 321 more men (95% CI 158 more to 558 more) per 1000 self-reporting the ability to have intercourse.\nGinseng may have a trivial effect on men's satisfaction with intercourse based on the Intercourse Satisfaction Domain of the IIEF-15 (scale: 0 to 15, higher scores imply greater satisfaction; MD 1.19, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.97; I²=0%; 3 studies; low certainty evidence) based on a MCID of 25% improvement from baseline. It may also have a trivial effect on men's satisfaction with intercourse based on item 5 of the IIEF-5 (scale: 0 to 5, higher scores imply more satisfaction; MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.18; 1 study; low certainty evidence) based on a MCID of 25% improvement from baseline.\nNo study reported quality of life as an outcome.\nWe found no trial evidence to inform comparisons to other treatments for erectile dysfunction, such as phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. We were unable to conduct any predefined subgroup analyses.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on mostly low certainty evidence, ginseng may only have trivial effects on erectile function or satisfaction with intercourse compared to placebo when assessed using validated instruments. Ginseng may improve men's self-reported ability to have intercourse. It may have little to no effect on adverse events. We found no trial evidence comparing ginseng to other agents with a more established role in treating erectile dysfunction, such as phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Compared to a dummy drug, ginseng may have a trivial effect on erectile function, as assessed by two questionnaires specially developed for this purpose. It may also have little to no effect on unwanted side effects. It may also have a trivial effect on men's satisfaction with intercourse based on responses to two specialized questionnaires.\nWhen men were simply asked whether their erections improved (without using a specialized questionnaire), the results of this systematic review show that ginseng may improve the ability to have intercourse."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4212 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Alendronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs, which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of alendronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant randomized controlled trials published between 1966 to 2007.\nSelection criteria\nWomen receiving at least one year of alendronate, for postmenopausal osteoporosis, were compared to those receiving placebo and/or concurrent calcium/vitamin D. The outcome was fracture incidence.\nData collection and analysis\nWe undertook study selection and data abstraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analysis of fracture outcomes using relative risks and a > 15% relative change was considered clinically important. We assessed study quality through reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals.\nMain results\nEleven trials representing 12,068 women were included in the review.\nRelative (RRR) and absolute (ARR) risk reductions for the 10 mg dose were as follows. For vertebral fractures, a significant 45% RRR was found (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.67). This was significant for both primary prevention, with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80) and 2% ARR, and secondary prevention with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.69) and 6% ARR. For non-vertebral fractures, a significant 16% RRR was found (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94). This was significant for secondary prevention, with 23% RRR (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.92) and 2% ARR, but not for primary prevention (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.04). There was a significant 40% RRR in hip fractures (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92), but only secondary prevention was significant with 53% RRR (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.85) and 1% ARR. The only significance found for wrist was in secondary prevention, with a 50% RRR (RR 0.50 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73) and 2% ARR.\nFor adverse events, we found no statistically significant differences in any included study. However, observational data raise concerns regarding potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury and, less commonly, osteonecrosis of the jaw.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt 10 mg per day, both clinically important and statistically significant reductions in vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures were observed for secondary prevention ('gold' level evidence, www.cochranemsk.org). We found no statistically significant results for primary prevention, with the exception of vertebral fractures, for which the reduction was clinically important ('gold' level evidence).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is osteoporosis and what is alendronate?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "What is osteoporosis and what is alendronate?Bone is a living, growing part of your body. Throughout your lifetime, new bone cells grow and old bone cells break down to make room for the new, stronger bone. When you have osteoporosis, the old bone breaks down faster than the new bone can replace it. As this happens, the bones lose minerals (such as calcium). This makes bones weaker and more likely to break even after a minor injury, like a little bump or fall. Women are more likely to get osteoporosis after menopause.Alendronate belongs to the class of drugs called bisphosphonates. It is a type of medication that slows down the cells that break down the old bone.The best estimate of what happens to women that have already been diagnosed with low bone density or have already had a fracture in the bones of their spine:\nFracture of the spine\n- 12 out of 100 women had a fracture when taking a placebo\n- 6 out of 100 women had a fracture when taking alendronate\nFracture in the hip or wrist\n- 2 out of 100 women had a fracture when taking a placebo\n- 1 out of 100 women had a fracture when taking alendronate\nFractures in bones other than the spine\n- 9 out of 100 women had a fracture when taking a placebo\n- 7 out of 100 women had a fracture when taking alendronate"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4213 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCoronary artery disease is a major public health problem affecting both developed and developing countries. Acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation (electrocardiogram sector is higher than baseline). Ventricular arrhythmia after myocardial infarction is associated with high risk of mortality. The evidence is out of date, and considerable uncertainty remains about the effects of prophylactic use of lidocaine on all-cause mortality, in particular, in patients with suspected myocardial infarction.\nObjectives\nTo determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic lidocaine in preventing death among people with myocardial infarction.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 April 2015), EMBASE (1947 to 13 April 2015) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1986 to 13 April 2015). We also searched Web of Science (1970 to 13 April 2013) and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restriction in the search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of prophylactic lidocaine for myocardial infarction. We considered all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality and overall survival at 30 days after myocardial infarction as primary outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nWe performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and measured statistical heterogeneity using I2. We used a random-effects model and conducted trial sequential analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified 37 randomised controlled trials involving 11,948 participants. These trials compared lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention, disopyramide, mexiletine, tocainide, propafenone, amiodarone, dimethylammonium chloride, aprindine and pirmenol. Overall, trials were underpowered and had high risk of bias. Ninety-seven per cent of trials (36/37) were conducted without an a priori sample size estimation. Ten trials were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Trials were conducted in 17 countries, and intravenous intervention was the most frequent route of administration.\nIn trials involving participants with proven or non-proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences regarding all-cause mortality (213/5879 (3.62%) vs 199/5848 (3.40%); RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; participants = 11727; studies = 18; I2 = 15%); low-quality evidence), cardiac mortality (69/4184 (1.65%) vs 62/4093 (1.51%); RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.50; participants = 8277; studies = 12; I2 = 12%; low-quality evidence) and prophylaxis of ventricular fibrillation (76/5128 (1.48%) vs 103/4987 (2.01%); RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; participants = 10115; studies = 16; I2 = 18%; low-quality evidence). In terms of sinus bradycardia, lidocaine effect is imprecise compared with effects of placebo or no intervention (55/1346 (4.08%) vs 49/1203 (4.07%); RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.80; participants = 2549; studies = 8; I2 = 21%; very low-quality evidence). In trials involving only participants with proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (148/2747 (5.39%) vs 135/2506 (5.39%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; participants = 5253; studies = 16; I2 = 9%; low-quality evidence). No significant differences were noted between lidocaine and any other antiarrhythmic drug in terms of all-cause mortality and ventricular fibrillation. Data on overall survival 30 days after myocardial infarction were not reported. Lidocaine compared with placebo or no intervention increased risk of asystole (35/3393 (1.03%) vs 14/3443 (0.41%); RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.26; participants = 6826; studies = 4; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and dizziness/drowsiness (74/1259 (5.88%) vs 16/1274 (1.26%); RR 3.85, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.47; participants = 2533; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Overall, safety data were poorly reported and adverse events may have been underestimated. Trial sequential analyses suggest that additional trials may not be needed for reliable conclusions to be drawn regarding these outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis Cochrane review found evidence of low quality to suggest that prophylactic lidocaine has very little or no effect on mortality or ventricular fibrillation in people with acute myocardial infarction. The safety profile is unclear. This conclusion is based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. However (disregarding the risk of bias), trial sequential analysis suggests that additional trials may not be needed to disprove an intervention effect of 20% relative risk reduction. Smaller risk reductions might require additional higher trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our confidence in the results of this review is low because the included trials that we synthesised were of low quality (overestimation of benefits and underestimation of harms) and were conducted with a small number of participants, leading to imprecision of results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4214 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSocial networking platforms offer a wide reach for public health interventions allowing communication with broad audiences using tools that are generally free and straightforward to use and may be combined with other components, such as public health policies. We define interactive social media as activities, practices, or behaviours among communities of people who have gathered online to interactively share information, knowledge, and opinions.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to assess the effectiveness of interactive social media interventions, in which adults are able to communicate directly with each other, on changing health behaviours, body functions, psychological health, well-being, and adverse effects.\nOur secondary objective was to assess the effects of these interventions on the health of populations who experience health inequity as defined by PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed whether there is evidence about PROGRESS-Plus populations being included in studies and whether results are analysed across any of these characteristics.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE (including trial registries) and PsycINFO. We used Google, Web of Science, and relevant web sites to identify additional studies and searched reference lists of included studies. We searched for published and unpublished studies from 2001 until June 1, 2020. We did not limit results by language.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs). We included studies in which the intervention website, app, or social media platform described a goal of changing a health behaviour, or included a behaviour change technique. The social media intervention had to be delivered to adults via a commonly-used social media platform or one that mimicked a commonly-used platform. We included studies comparing an interactive social media intervention alone or as a component of a multi-component intervention with either a non-interactive social media control or an active but less-interactive social media comparator (e.g. a moderated versus an unmoderated discussion group).\nOur main outcomes were health behaviours (e.g. physical activity), body function outcomes (e.g. blood glucose), psychological health outcomes (e.g. depression), well-being, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were process outcomes important for behaviour change and included knowledge, attitudes, intention and motivation, perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and social support.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used a pre-tested data extraction form and collected data independently, in duplicate. Because we aimed to assess broad outcomes, we extracted only one outcome per main and secondary outcome categories prioritised by those that were the primary outcome as reported by the study authors, used in a sample size calculation, and patient-important.\nMain results\nWe included 88 studies (871,378 participants), of which 84 were RCTs, three were CBAs and one was an ITS. The majority of the studies were conducted in the USA (54%). In total, 86% were conducted in high-income countries and the remaining 14% in upper middle-income countries. The most commonly used social media platform was Facebook (39%) with few studies utilising other platforms such as WeChat, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Google Hangouts. Many studies (48%) used web-based communities or apps that mimic functions of these well-known social media platforms.\nWe compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with non-interactive social media interventions, which included paper-based or in-person interventions or no intervention. We only reported the RCT results in our 'Summary of findings' table. We found a range of effects on health behaviours, such as breastfeeding, condom use, diet quality, medication adherence, medical screening and testing, physical activity, tobacco use, and vaccination. For example, these interventions may increase physical activity and medical screening tests but there was little to no effect for other health behaviours, such as improved diet or reduced tobacco use (20,139 participants in 54 RCTs). For body function outcomes, interactive social media interventions may result in small but important positive effects, such as a small but important positive effect on weight loss and a small but important reduction in resting heart rate (4521 participants in 30 RCTs). Interactive social media may improve overall well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.79, moderate effect, low-certainty evidence) demonstrated by an increase of 3.77 points on a general well-being scale (from 1.15 to 6.48 points higher) where scores range from 14 to 70 (3792 participants in 16 studies). We found no difference in effect on psychological outcomes (depression and distress) representing a difference of 0.1 points on a standard scale in which scores range from 0 to 63 points (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, low-certainty evidence, 2070 participants in 12 RCTs).\nWe also compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with those with an active but less interactive social media control (11 studies). Four RCTs (1523 participants) that reported on physical activity found an improvement demonstrated by an increase of 28 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week (from 10 to 47 minutes more, SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, small effect, very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found little to no difference in well-being for those in the intervention and control groups (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.13, small effect, low-certainty evidence), demonstrated by a mean change of 0.4 points on a scale with a range of 0 to 100.\nAdverse events related to the social media component of the interventions, such as privacy issues, were not reported in any of our included studies.\nWe were unable to conduct planned subgroup analyses related to health equity as only four studies reported relevant data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review combined data for a variety of outcomes and found that social media interventions that aim to increase physical activity may be effective and social media interventions may improve well-being. While we assessed many other outcomes, there were too few studies to compare or, where there were studies, the evidence was uncertain. None of our included studies reported adverse effects related to the social media component of the intervention. Future studies should assess adverse events related to the interactive social media component and should report on population characteristics to increase our understanding of the potential effect of these interventions on reducing health inequities.\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": "People who use social media can exchange ideas and share updates about their behaviours, such as becoming more active or eating more healthily. We wanted to find out if health programmes using interactive social media could change people's behaviours and improve their health."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4215 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUrinary tract infection (UTI) is common in children. Symptoms include fever, lethargy, anorexia, and vomiting. UTI is caused by Escherichia coli in over 80% of cases and treatment is a course of antibiotics. Due to acute illness caused by UTI and the risk of pyelonephritis-induced permanent kidney damage, many children are given long-term (several months to 2 years) antibiotics aimed at preventing recurrence. This is the third update of a review first published in 2001 and updated in 2006, and 2011.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether long-term antibiotic prophylaxis was more effective than placebo/no treatment in preventing recurrence of UTI in children, and if so which antibiotic in clinical use was the most effective. We also assessed the harms of long-term antibiotic treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 30 July 2018 through contact with the Cochrane Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised comparisons of antibiotics with other antibiotics, placebo or no treatment to prevent recurrent UTI in children.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed and extracted information for the initial and previous updates. A random-effects model was used to estimate risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for recurrent UTI with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nIn this update sixteen studies (2036 children randomised, 1977 analysed) were included. Seven studies (612 children) compared two or more types of antibiotics, six (1088 children) compared antibiotics with placebo or no treatment, one four-armed study compared circumcision with and without antibiotic treatment, one study compared dose of antibiotic, and one three-armed study compared two different antibiotics as well as no treatment. Of the sixteen included studies only one study was judged to be at low risk of bias for all domains, with the majority judged to be at unclear risk of bias due to very poorly reported methodology. The number of studies judged to be a low risk of bias was: selection bias (7); performance bias (4); detection bias (1); attrition bias (6); reporting bias (7); and other bias (2). The number of studies judged to be at high risk of bias was: selection bias (0); performance bias (5); detection bias (1); attrition bias (4); reporting bias (6); and other bias (1).\nCompared to placebo/no treatment, antibiotics lead to a modest decrease in the number of repeat symptomatic UTI in children; however the estimate from combining all studies was not certain and the confidence interval indicates low precision indicating that antibiotics may make little or no difference to risk of repeat infection (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.98). When we combined only the data from studies with concealed treatment allocation, there was a similar reduction in risk of repeat symptomatic UTI in children taking antibiotics (RR 0.68) and we have greater certainty in this estimate because of the more robust study designs, the confidence interval is smaller and it does not include the point of no effect (95% CI 0.48 to 0.95). The estimated reduction in risk of repeat symptomatic UTI for children taking antibiotics was similar in children with vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.07) compared to those without VUR (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.12) however there was considerable uncertainty due to imprecision from fewer events in the smaller group of children with VUR. There was no consistency in occurrence of adverse events, with one study having more events in the placebo group and a second study having more events in the antibiotics group. Three studies reported data for antibiotic resistance with the analysis estimating the risk of a UTI caused by a bacteria resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic being almost 2.5 times greater in children on antibiotics than for children on placebo or no treatment (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.62 to 9.26). However the confidence interval is wide, showing imprecision and there may be little or no difference between the two groups.\nEight studies involving 659 children compared one antibiotic with another but few studies compared the same combination for the same outcome so little data could be pooled. Two studies reported microbial resistance data and analysis showed that treatment with nitrofurantoin may lead to a lower risk of a UTI caused by a bacteria resistant to the treatment drug compared to children given trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole as their prophylactic treatment (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.92).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLong-term antibiotics may reduce the risk of repeat symptomatic UTI in children who have had one or more previous UTIs but the benefit may be small and must be considered together with the increased risk of microbial resistance.\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 included 16 studies (2036 children randomised, 1977 analysed). This review found that long-term antibiotics may reduce the risk of repeat symptomatic infections but the benefit is probably small and must be weighed against the likelihood that future infections are likely to be caused by bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic given."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4216 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHelicobacter pylori (H pylori) is one of the most common pathogens to establish and cause infection in human beings, affecting about 50% of the world's population. Prevalence may be as high as 83% in Latin American countries and as low as 17% in North America. Approximately 20% of infected people will manifest disease; people at high risk include those who live in low- and middle-income countries with poor sanitary conditions, since the mechanism of transmission seems to be oral-oral or faecal-oral (mostly during infancy). There are several antibiotic regimens to treat the infection, but antibiotic resistance is growing around the world. New adjuvant drugs — such as probiotics, statins, curcumin, and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) — are being tested to enhance eradication rates.\nN-acetylcysteine can destabilise the biofilm structure; it also has synergic action with antibiotics, and bactericidal effects. In addition, NAC has antioxidant properties, and has a primary mucolytic effect by reducing the thickness of the gastric mucus layer, both of which may exert beneficial adjuvant effects on H pylori eradication.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of N-acetylcysteine as an adjuvant therapy to antibiotics for Helicobacter pylori eradication.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2018), Embase (1988 to April 2018), CINAHL (1982 to April 2018), LILACS (1982 to April 2018), grey literature databases and trials registries. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant studies. We screened 726 articles and assessed 18 for eligibility.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any antibiotic regimen plus NAC, in adults infected with H pylori. To be included, trials had to use a control consisting of the same antibiotic regimen with or without placebo. Outcomes of interest were eradication rates, and gastrointestinal, toxic, and allergic adverse events. Reporting of the primary outcomes listed here was not an inclusion criterion for the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed and extracted data and completed the 'Risk of bias' assessments. A third review author independently confirmed the 'Risk of bias' assessments. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis. We contacted study authors if there was missing information.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs (with a total of 559 participants) in this review. The studies recruited outpatients aged between 17 and 76 years who were referred to endoscopy centres in several different countries. The certainty of evidence was reduced for most outcomes due to the poor methodological quality of included studies; issues mainly related to the generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, and blinding (this last domain related specifically to adverse outcomes).\nWe are uncertain whether the addition of NAC to antibiotics improves H pylori eradication rates, compared with the addition of placebo or no NAC (38.8% versus 49.1%, risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.08; participants = 559; studies = eight; very low-certainty evidence). A post-hoc sensitivity analysis, in which we removed studies that tested antibiotic regimens no longer recommended in clinical practice, showed that the addition of NAC may improve eradication rates compared to control (27.2% versus 37.6%, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94; participants = 397; published studies = five).\nWe are uncertain whether NAC is associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared to control (23.9% versus 18.9%, RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.85; participants = 336; studies = five; very low-certaintyevidence), or allergic adverse events (2% versus 0%, RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.32 to 27.74; participants = 336; studies = five; very low-certainty evidence). There were no reports of toxic adverse events amongst included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether the addition of NAC to antibiotics improves H pylori eradication rates compared with the addition of placebo or no NAC. Due to the clinical, statistical and methodological heterogeneity found in included studies, and the uncertainty observed when analysing therapy subgroups, any possible beneficial effect of NAC should be regarded cautiously.\nWe are uncertain whether NAC is associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal or allergic adverse events compared with placebo or no NAC. There were no reports of toxic adverse events amongst the included studies.\nFurther large, well-designed, randomised clinical studies should be conducted, with good reporting standards and appropriate collection of efficacy and safety outcomes, especially for current recommended antibiotic regimens.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The overall certainty of the evidence for eradication rates ranged from very low to low. Five studies provided information on adverse events (side effects), and the certainy of evidence was very low. The included studies were poorly conducted and this reduced our confidence in the results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4217 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGovernments use different approaches to ensure that private for-profit healthcare services meet certain quality standards. Such government guidance, referred to as public stewardship, encompasses government policies, regulatory mechanisms, and implementation strategies for ensuring accountability in the delivery of services. However, the effectiveness of these strategies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have not been the subject of a systematic review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of public sector regulation, training, or co-ordination of the private for-profit health sector in low- and middle-income countries.\nSearch methods\nFor related systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) 2015, Issue 4; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) 2015, Issue 1; Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) 2015, Issue 1; all part of The Cochrane Library, and searched 28 April 2015. For primary studies, we searched MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and MEDLINE 1946 to Present, OvidSP (searched 16 June 2016); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index 1987 to present, and Emerging Sources Citation Index 2015 to present, ISI Web of Science (searched 3 May 2016 for papers citing included studies); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 3, part of The Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register) (searched 28 April 2015); Embase 1980 to 2015 Week 17, OvidSP (searched 28 April 2015); Global Health 1973 to 2015 Week 16, OvidSP (searched 30 April 2015); WHOLIS, WHO (searched 30 April 2015); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index 1975 to present, ISI Web of Science (searched 30 April 2015); Health Management, ProQuest (searched 22 November 2013). In addition, in April 2016, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and various electronic databases of grey literature.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time series studies, or controlled before-after studies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data, comparing their results and resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where appropriate, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We did not conduct meta-analysis because of heterogeneity of interventions and study designs.\nMain results\nWe identified 20,177 records, 50 of them potentially eligible. We excluded 39 potentially eligible studies because they did not involve a rigorous evaluation of training, regulation, or co-ordination of private for-profit healthcare providers in LMICs; five studies identified after the review was submitted are awaiting assessment; and six studies met our inclusion criteria. Two included studies assessed training alone; one assessed regulation alone; three assessed a multifaceted intervention involving training and regulation; and none assessed co-ordination. All six included studies targeted private for-profit pharmacy workers in Africa and Asia.\nThree studies found that training probably increases sale of oral rehydration solution (one trial in Kenya, 106 pharmacies: RR 3.04, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.75; and one trial in Indonesia, 87 pharmacies: RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93) and dispensing of anti-malarial drugs (one trial in Kenya, 293 pharmacies: RR 8.76, 95% CI 0.94 to 81.81); moderate-certainty evidence.\nOne study conducted in the Lao People's Democratic Republic shows that regulation of the distribution and sale of registered pharmaceutical products may improve composite pharmacy indicators (one trial, 115 pharmacies: improvements in four of six pharmacy indicators; low-certainty evidence).\nThe outcome in three multifaceted intervention studies was the quality of pharmacy practice; including the ability to ask questions, give advice, and provide appropriate treatment. The trials applied regulation, training, and peer influence in sequence; and the study design does not permit separation of the effects of the different interventions. Two trials conducted among 136 pharmacies in Vietnam found that the multifaceted intervention may improve the quality of pharmacy practice; but the third study, involving 146 pharmacies in Vietnam and Thailand, found that the intervention may have little or no effects on the quality of pharmacy practice (low-certainty evidence).\nOnly two studies (both conducted in Vietnam) reported cost data, with no rigorous assessment of the economic implications of implementing the interventions in resource-constrained settings. No study reported data on equity, mortality, morbidity, adverse effects, satisfaction, or attitudes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTraining probably improves quality of care (i.e. adherence to recommended practice), regulation may improve quality of care, and we are uncertain about the effects of co-ordination on quality of private for-profit healthcare services in LMICs. The likelihood that further research will find the effect of training to be substantially different from the results of this review is moderate; implying that monitoring of the impact is likely to be needed if training is implemented. The low certainty of the evidence for regulation implies that the likelihood of further research finding the effect of regulation to be substantially different from the results of this review is high. Therefore, an impact evaluation is warranted if government regulation of private for-profit providers is implemented in LMICs. Rigorous evaluations of these interventions should also assess other outcomes such as impacts on equity, cost implications, mortality, morbidity, and adverse effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to June 2016."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4218 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal use.\nObjectives\nTo establish the effectiveness and safety of different ways of using topical corticosteroids for treating eczema.\nSearch methods\nWe searched databases to January 2021 (Cochrane Skin Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; GREAT) and five clinical trials registers. We checked bibliographies from included trials to identify further trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in adults and children with eczema that compared at least two strategies of topical corticosteroid use. We excluded placebo comparisons, other than for trials that evaluated proactive versus reactive treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods, with GRADE certainty of evidence for key findings. Primary outcomes were changes in clinician-reported signs and relevant local adverse events. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported symptoms and relevant systemic adverse events. For local adverse events, we prioritised abnormal skin thinning as a key area of concern for healthcare professionals and patients.\nMain results\nWe included 104 trials (8443 participants). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (81/104), most likely in outpatient or other hospital settings. We judged only one trial to be low risk of bias across all domains. Fifty-five trials had high risk of bias in at least one domain, mostly due to lack of blinding or missing outcome data.\nStronger-potency versus weaker-potency topical corticosteroids\nSixty-three trials compared different potencies of topical corticosteroids: 12 moderate versus mild, 22 potent versus mild, 25 potent versus moderate, and 6 very potent versus potent. Trials were usually in children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, lasting one to five weeks. The most reported outcome was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of clinician-reported signs of eczema.\nWe pooled four trials that compared moderate- versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (420 participants). Moderate-potency topical corticosteroids probably result in more participants achieving treatment success, defined as cleared or marked improvement on IGA (52% versus 34%; odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.04; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled nine trials that compared potent versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (392 participants). Potent topical corticosteroids probably result in a large increase in number achieving treatment success (70% versus 39%; OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.72; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled 15 trials that compared potent versus moderate-potency topical corticosteroids (1053 participants). There was insufficient evidence of a benefit of potent topical corticosteroids compared to moderate topical corticosteroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled three trials that compared very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids (216 participants). The evidence is uncertain with a wide confidence interval (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence).\nTwice daily or more versus once daily application\nWe pooled 15 of 25 trials in this comparison (1821 participants, all reported IGA). The trials usually assessed adults and children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, using potent topical corticosteroids, lasting two to six weeks.\nApplying potent topical corticosteroids only once a day probably does not decrease the number achieving treatment success compared to twice daily application (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.38; 15 trials, 1821 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nLocal adverse events\nWithin the trials that tested 'treating eczema flare-up' strategies, we identified only 26 cases of abnormal skin thinning from 2266 participants (1% across 22 trials). Most cases were from the use of higher-potency topical corticosteroids (16 with very potent, 6 with potent, 2 with moderate and 2 with mild). We assessed this evidence as low certainty, except for very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids, which was very low-certainty evidence.\nLonger versus shorter-term duration of application for induction of remission\nNo trials were identified.\nTwice weekly application (weekend, or ‘proactive therapy') to prevent relapse (flare-ups) versus no topical corticosteroids/reactive application\nNine trials assessed this comparison, generally lasting 16 to 20 weeks. We pooled seven trials that compared weekend (proactive) topical corticosteroids therapy versus no topical corticosteroids (1179 participants, children and adults with a range of eczema severities, though mainly moderate or severe).\nWeekend (proactive) therapy probably results in a large decrease in likelihood of a relapse from 58% to 25% (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 7 trials, 1149 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nLocal adverse events\nWe did not identify any cases of abnormal skin thinning in seven trials that assessed skin thinning (1050 participants) at the end of treatment. We assessed this evidence as low certainty.\nOther comparisons\nOther comparisons included newer versus older preparations of topical corticosteroids (15 trials), cream versus ointment (7 trials), topical corticosteroids with wet wrap versus no wet wrap (6 trials), number of days per week applied (4 trials), different concentrations of the same topical corticosteroids (2 trials), time of day applied (2 trials), topical corticosteroids alternating with topical calcineurin inhibitors versus topical corticosteroids alone (1 trial), application to wet versus dry skin (1 trial) and application before versus after emollient (1 trial). No trials compared branded versus generic topical corticosteroids and time between application of emollient and topical corticosteroids.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPotent and moderate topical corticosteroids are probably more effective than mild topical corticosteroids, primarily in moderate or severe eczema; however, there is uncertain evidence to support any advantage of very potent over potent topical corticosteroids. Effectiveness is similar between once daily and twice daily (or more) frequent use of potent topical corticosteroids to treat eczema flare-ups, and topical corticosteroids weekend (proactive) therapy is probably better than no topical corticosteroids/reactive use to prevent eczema relapse (flare-ups). Adverse events were not well reported and came largely from low- or very low-certainty, short-term trials. In trials that reported abnormal skin thinning, frequency was low overall and increased with increasing potency. We found no trials on the optimum duration of treatment of a flare, branded versus generic topical corticosteroids, and time to leave between application of topical corticosteroids and emollient. There is a need for longer-term trials, in people with mild eczema.\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": "Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, likely in hospitals, and were short term (range 1 to 6 weeks); studies that assessed prevention of eczema flares lasted longer, but under 6 months. Participant age varied; 43 studies included children only. Eczema was moderate or severe in 51 studies, mild to moderate in 16 studies, mild to severe in 3 studies, and 34 studies did not report severity. Approximately half of the studies were funded by companies that produced the steroid cream or had links to industry; 44 did not report their funding source.\nWe included 104 studies with 8443 people."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4219 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is the hallmark of sickle cell disease (SCD) and it can be severe, frequent and unpredictable. Although nociceptive pain is more common, at times, people with SCD may have neuropathic pain. The latter can occur due to peripheral or central nerve injury. This review is focused on identifying treatment of only painful sensory neuropathy in people with SCD.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies for treating neuropathic pain in people with SCD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched trial registries, the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and contacted experts in the field.\nDate of last search: 31 January 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel or cross-over in design), quasi-RCTs of pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies for treating neuropathic pain in people with SCD compared to placebo or another intervention in any category (i.e. pharmacological or non-pharmacological).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed all trials identified by the searches and extracted relevant data. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the selected trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Two review authors independently rated the quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE guidelines.\nMain results\nOne RCT of 22 participants with SCD, conducted in the USA was included in this review. Participants were randomly assigned to either pregabalin (n = 11) or placebo (n = 11). Oral pregabalin was administered at an initial dose of 75 mg twice daily. The drug was titrated at increments of 75 mg to a maximum of 600 mg daily or decreased by 75 mg per day if necessary, based on clinical presentation and pain level. Neuropathic pain was assessed using self-reports on the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANNS) scale and the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), where higher scores were indicative of more pain. Outcomes included self-reported pain, quality of life and withdrawal due to adverse effects measured at baseline and monthly for three months post-intervention. The overall risk of bias was low with a high risk of bias due to attrition.\nIn relation to this reviews primary outcomes, for self-reported neuropathic pain relief, given the paucity of data, we are very uncertain whether there is a difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups at the end of three months as measured by the S-LANSS scale, mean difference (MD) -2.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) -9.18 to 5.18), or the NPSI scale, MD -11.10 (95% CI -33.97 to 11.77) (very low-quality evidence). There was no report of 'Patient Global Impression of Change' in the included trial.\nAlthough the mean quality of life scores (Short Form-36) at three months showed small increases in seven of the eight domains post-intervention in the pregabalin group as compared to the placebo group, this was very low-quality evidence and we are very uncertain whether pregabalin increases quality of life. Neither of our pre-defined outcomes of 'time to improvement of symptoms' or 'changes in sleep quality', were measured in the included trial.\nWhile treatment-related adverse effects appeared higher in pregabalin group than the placebo group at three months, this was very low-quality evidence and we are very uncertain whether there is a difference, RR 1.33 (95% CI 0.39 to 4.62) (very low-quality evidence). There was one withdrawal for adverse effects in the pregabalin group while three people withdrew or dropped out from the placebo group due to adverse effects and complications and hospitalisation related to SCD.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe included trial provided very low-quality evidence. Self-reported pain relief was greater in the pregabalin group compared to the placebo control group but only using the S-LANSS scale and we are very unsure whether there is a difference. While the pregabalin group tended to have improved quality of life over the duration of the trial, this was very low-quality evidence and we are uncertain whether there is a difference. Adverse effects and withdrawals were similar across the treatment and placebo control group in trial. There are both insufficient trials addressing this review question and insufficient outcomes addressed in the single included RCT. Therefore, there is still a significant gap in evidence on interventions for neuropathic pain in people with SCD.\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": "Pain is the most common complication of SCD. Some of this pain may be due to damage to nerves and this pain needs to be treated differently from the usual sickle cell pain. The usual medications such as ibuprofen or morphine may not be effective in managing this nerve pain. This trial aimed to examine how safe and effective medications or other alternative treatments are for nerve pain in people with SCD."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4220 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDiabetes is the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) around the world. Blood pressure lowering and glucose control are used to reduce diabetes-associated disability including kidney failure. However there is a lack of an overall evidence summary of the optimal target range for blood glucose control to prevent kidney failure.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of intensive (HbA1c < 7% or fasting glucose levels < 120 mg/dL versus standard glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7% or fasting glucose levels ≥ 120 mg/dL for preventing the onset and progression of kidney disease among adults with diabetes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 31 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 (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials evaluating glucose-lowering interventions in which people (aged 14 year or older) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with and without kidney disease were randomly allocated to tight glucose control or less stringent blood glucose targets.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risks of bias, extracted data and checked the processes for accuracy. Outcomes were mortality, cardiovascular complications, doubling of serum creatinine (SCr), ESKD and proteinuria. Confidence in the evidence was assessing using GRADE. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes.\nMain results\nFourteen studies involving 29,319 people with diabetes were included and 11 studies involving 29,141 people were included in our meta-analyses. Treatment duration was 56.7 months on average (range 6 months to 10 years). Studies included people with a range of kidney function. Incomplete reporting of key methodological details resulted in uncertain risks of bias in many studies. Using GRADE assessment, we had moderate confidence in the effects of glucose lowering strategies on ESKD, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and progressive protein leakage by kidney disease and low or very low confidence in effects of treatment on death related to cardiovascular complications and doubling of serum creatinine (SCr).\nFor the primary outcomes, tight glycaemic control may make little or no difference to doubling of SCr compared with standard control (4 studies, 26,874 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.11; I2= 73%, low certainty evidence), development of ESKD (4 studies, 23,332 participants: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; I2= 52%; low certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (9 studies, 29,094 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; I2= 50%; moderate certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (6 studies, 23,673 participants: RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.92; I2= 85%; low certainty evidence), or sudden death (4 studies, 5913 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.57; I2= 85%; very low certainty evidence). People who received treatment to achieve tighter glycaemic control probably experienced lower risks of non-fatal myocardial infarction (5 studies, 25,596 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99; I2= 46%, moderate certainty evidence), onset of microalbuminuria (4 studies, 19,846 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.93; I2= 61%, moderate certainty evidence), and progression of microalbuminuria (5 studies, 13,266 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; I2= 75%, moderate certainty evidence). In absolute terms, tight versus standard glucose control treatment in 1,000 adults would lead to between zero and two people avoiding non-fatal myocardial infarction, while seven adults would avoid experiencing new-onset albuminuria and two would avoid worsening albuminuria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests that people who receive intensive glycaemic control for treatment of diabetes had comparable risks of kidney failure, death and major cardiovascular events as people who received less stringent blood glucose control, while experiencing small clinical benefits on the onset and progression of microalbuminuria and myocardial infarction. The adverse effects of glycaemic management are uncertain. Based on absolute treatment effects, the clinical impact of targeting an HbA1c < 7% or blood glucose < 6.6 mmol/L is unclear and the potential harms of this treatment approach are largely unmeasured.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Our conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The review concludes that people with diabetes receive uncertain benefits from tighter blood glucose control in the long-term and the immediate complications of this treatment approach are difficult to know accurately."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4221 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic pelvic pain is a common and debilitating condition; its aetiology is multifactorial, involving social, psychological and biological factors. The management of chronic pelvic pain is challenging, as despite interventions involving surgery, many women remain in pain without a firm gynaecological diagnosis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of non-surgical interventions for women with chronic pelvic pain.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register. We also searched (from inception to 5 February 2014) AMED, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS. We handsearched sources such as citation lists, trial registers and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) on non-surgical management of chronic pelvic pain were eligible for inclusion. We included studies of women with a diagnosis of pelvic congestion syndrome or adhesions but excluded those with pain known to be caused by endometriosis, primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), active chronic pelvic inflammatory disease or irritable bowel syndrome. We considered studies of any non-surgical intervention, including lifestyle, physical, medical and psychological treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nStudy selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two review authors. Meta-analysis was performed using the Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome measure was pain relief, and secondary outcome measures were psychological outcomes, quality of life, requirement for analgesia and adverse effects. The quality of the evidence was assessed by using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nTwenty-one RCTs were identified that involved non-surgical management of chronic pelvic pain: 13 trials were included in the review, and eight were excluded. The studies included a total of 750 women—406 women in the intervention groups and 344 in the control groups. Included studies had high attrition rates, and investigators often did not blind adequately or did not clearly describe randomisation procedures.\nMedical treatment versus placebo\nProgestogen (medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)) was more effective than placebo at the end of treatment in terms of the number of women achieving a greater than 50% reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score immediately after treatment (Peto OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.70 to 5.31, two studies, n = 204, I2 = 22%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence of benefit was maintained up to nine months after treatment (Peto OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.71, two studies, n = 204, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Women treated with progestogen reported more adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, bloatedness) than those given placebo (high-quality evidence). The estimated effect of lofexidine on pain outcomes when compared with placebo was compatible with benefit and harm (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.61, one study, 39 women, low-quality evidence). Women in the lofexidine group reported more adverse effects (including drowsiness and dry mouth) than women given placebo (moderate-quality evidence).\nHead-to-head comparisons of medical treatments\nHead-to-head comparisons showed that women taking goserelin had greater improvement in pelvic pain score (MD 3, 95% CI 2.08 to 3.92, one study, n = 47, moderate-quality evidence) at one year than those taking progestogen. Women taking gabapentin had a lower VAS pain score than those taking amytriptyline (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.06 to -0.94, n = 40, low-quality evidence). Study authors reported that no statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of adverse effects among women taking gabapentin compared with women given amytriptyline. The study comparing goserelin versus progestogen did not report on adverse effects.\nPsychological treatment\nWomen who underwent reassurance ultrasound scans and received counselling were more likely to report improved pain than those treated with a standard 'wait and see' policy (Peto OR 6.77, 95% CI 2.83 to 16.19, n = 90, low-quality evidence). Significantly more women who had writing therapy as a disclosure reported improvement in pain than those in the non-disclosure group (Peto OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.41 to 14.13, n = 48, very low-quality evidence). No difference between groups in pain outcomes was noted when other psychological therapies were compared with standard care or placebo (quality of evidence ranged from very low to low). Studies did not report on adverse effects.\nComplementary therapy\nDistension of painful pelvic structures was more effective for pain when compared with counselling (MD 35.8, 95% CI 23.08 to 48.52 on a zero to 100 scale, one study, n = 48, moderate-quality evidence). No difference in pain levels was observed when magnetic therapy was compared with use of a control magnet (very low-quality evidence). Studies did not report on adverse effects.\nThe results of studies examining psychological and complementary therapies could not be combined to yield meaningful results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence of moderate quality supports progestogen as an option for chronic pelvic pain, with efficacy reported during treatment. In practice, this option may be most acceptable among women unconcerned about progestogenic adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, bloatedness—the most common adverse effects). Although some evidence suggests possible benefit of goserelin when compared with progestogen, gabapentin as compared with amytriptyline, ultrasound versus 'wait and see' and writing therapy versus non-disclosure, the quality of evidence is generally low, and evidence is drawn from single studies.\nGiven the prevalence and healthcare costs associated with chronic pelvic pain in women, RCTs of other medical, lifestyle and psychological interventions are urgently 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": "Twenty-one randomised controlled studies were identified, of which 13 were included. Eight studies were excluded. The studies included a total of 750 women—406 women in the intervention groups and 344 women in the control groups. The interventions assessed included medical treatment and psychological, cognitive, behavioural, complementary and physical therapies. The evidence is current to February 2014."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4222 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients with advanced lung cancer have a high symptom burden, which is often complicated by coexisting conditions. These issues, combined with the indirect effects of cancer treatment, can cumulatively lead patients to continued deconditioning and low exercise capacity. This is a concern as exercise capacity is considered a measure of whole body health, and is critical in a patient's ability to participate in life activities and tolerate difficult treatments. There is evidence that exercise training improves exercise capacity and other outcomes, such as muscle force and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in cancer survivors. However, the effectiveness of exercise training on these outcomes in people with advanced lung cancer is currently unclear.\nObjectives\nThe primary aim of this review was to investigate the effects of exercise training on exercise capacity in adults with advanced lung cancer. Exercise capacity was defined as the six-minute walk distance (6MWD; in meters) measured during a six-minute walk test (6MWT; i.e. how far an individual can walk in six minutes on a flat course), or the peak oxygen uptake (i.e. VO₂peak) measured during a maximal incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET).\nThe secondary aims were to determine the effects of exercise training on the force-generating capacity of peripheral muscles, disease-specific global HRQoL, physical functioning component of HRQoL, dyspnoea, fatigue, feelings of anxiety and depression, lung function, level of physical activity, adverse events, performance status, body weight and overall survival in adults with advanced lung cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and SciELO on 7 July 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared exercise training versus no exercise training in adults with advanced lung cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the studies and selected those for inclusion. We performed meta-analyses for the following outcomes: exercise capacity, disease-specific global HRQoL, physical functioning HRQoL, dyspnoea, fatigue, feelings of anxiety and depression, and lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)). Two studies reported force-generating capacity of peripheral muscles, and we presented the results narratively. Limited data were available for level of physical activity, adverse events, performance status, body weight and overall survival.\nMain results\nWe identified six RCTs, involving 221 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 59 to 70 years; the sample size ranged from 20 to 111 participants. Overall, we found that the risk of bias in the included studies was high, and the quality of evidence for all outcomes was low.\nPooled data from four studies demonstrated that, on completion of the intervention period, exercise capacity (6MWD) was significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group (mean difference (MD) 63.33 m; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.70 to 122.96). On completion of the intervention period, disease-specific global HRQoL was significantly better in the intervention group compared to the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.51; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.93). There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in physical functioning HRQoL (SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.58), dyspnoea (SMD -0.27; 95% CI -0.64 to 0.10), fatigue (SMD 0.03; 95% CI -0.51 to 0.58), feelings of anxiety (MD -1.21 units on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; 95% CI -5.88 to 3.45) and depression (SMD -1.26; 95% CI -4.68 to 2.17), and FEV1 (SMD 0.43; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.97).\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise training may improve or avoid the decline in exercise capacity and disease-specific global HRQoL for adults with advanced lung cancer. We found no significant effects of exercise training on dyspnoea, fatigue, feelings of anxiety and depression, or lung function. The findings of this review should be viewed with caution because of the heterogeneity between studies, the small sample sizes, and the high risk of bias of included studies. Larger, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm and expand knowledge on the effects of exercise training in this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our results showed that, compared to those who did not exercise, people with lung cancer who did exercise were fitter and had a better quality of life. We did not find any difference in muscle strength, shortness of breath, tiredness, feelings of anxiety and depression, or lung function. No serious harms were reported in people with lung cancer who exercised, but only three studies talked about harms."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4223 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.\nChronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Systemic and topical antibiotics are used with the aim of eliminating infection in the short term (and some to reduce inflammation in the long term), in order to normalise nasal mucus and improve symptoms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics in people with chronic rhinosinusitis.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 29 September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing systemic or topical antibiotic treatment to (a) placebo or (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - gastrointestinal disturbance. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) and anaphylaxis or other very serious reactions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.\nMain results\nWe included five RCTs (293 participants), all of which compared systemic antibiotics with placebo or another pharmacological intervention.\nThe varying study characteristics made comparison difficult. Four studies recruited only adults and one only children. Three used macrolide, one tetracycline and one a cephalosporin-type antibiotic. Three recruited only patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, one recruited patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and one had a mixed population. Three followed up patients for 10 to 12 weeks after treatment had finished.\nSystemic antibiotics versus placebo\nThree studies compared antibiotics with placebo (176 participants).\nOne study (64 participants, without polyps) reported disease-specific HRQL using the SNOT-20 (0 to 5, 0 = best quality of life). At the end of treatment (three months) the SNOT-20 score was lower in the group receiving macrolide antibiotics than the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -0.54 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98 to -0.10), corresponding to a moderate effect size favouring antibiotics (moderate quality evidence). Three months after treatment, it is uncertain if there was a difference between groups.\nOne study (33 participants, with polyps) provided information on gastrointestinal disturbances and suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) after a short course of tetracycline antibiotic compared with placebo. We are very uncertain if antibiotics were associated with an increase in gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.50) or skin irritation (RR 6.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 128.86) (very low quality evidence).\nSystemic antibiotics plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids\nOne study (60 participants, some with and some without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with placebo; all participants also used saline irrigation and 70% used intranasal corticosteroids. Disease-specific HRQL was reported using SNOT-22 (0 to 110, 0 = best quality of life). Data were difficult to interpret (highly skewed and baseline imbalances) and it is unclear if there was an important difference at any time point (low quality evidence). To assess patient-reported disease severity participants rated the effect of treatment on a five-point scale (-2 for \"desperately worse\" to 2 for \"cured\") at the end of treatment (three months). For improvement in symptoms there was no difference between the antibiotics and placebo groups; the RR was 1.50 (95% CI 0.81 to 2.79; very low quality evidence), although there were also slightly more people who felt worse after treatment in the antibiotics group. There was no demonstrable difference in the rate of gastrointestinal disturbances between the groups (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.10). General HRQL was measured using the SF-36. The authors stated that there was no difference between groups at the end of treatment (12 weeks) or two weeks later.\nSystemic antibiotics versus intranasal corticosteroids\nOne study (43 participants, without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with intranasal corticosteroids. Patient-reported disease severity was assessed using a composite symptom score (0 to 40; 0 = no symptoms). It is very uncertain if there was a difference as patient-reported disease severity was similar between groups (MD -0.32, 95% CI -2.11 to 1.47; low quality evidence).\nSystemic antibiotics versus oral corticosteroids\nOne study (28 participants, with polyps) compared a short course of tetracycline antibiotic (unclear duration, ˜20 days) with a 20-day course of oral corticosteroids. We were unable to extract data on any of the primary efficacy outcomes. It is uncertain if there was a difference ingastrointestinal disturbances (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.14) or skin irritation (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.62) as the results for these outcomes were similar between groups (very low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very little evidence that systemic antibiotics are effective in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. We did find moderate quality evidence of a modest improvement in disease-specific quality of life in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps receiving three months of a macrolide antibiotic. The size of improvement was moderate (0.5 points on a five-point scale) and only seen at the end of the three-month treatment; by three months later no difference was found.\nDespite a general understanding that antibiotics can be associated with adverse effects, including gastrointestinal disturbances, the results in this review were very uncertain because the studies were small and few events were reported.\nNo RCTs of topical antibiotics met the inclusion criteria.\nMore research in this area, particularly evaluating longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "When compared to a placebo (three studies), there was moderate quality evidence in one study that there may be an improvement in disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) with oral antibiotics in people with chronic rhinosinusitis (without polyps) at the end of treatment (three months), but it is unclear if HRQL was still improved three months later. There may have been an increase in gastrointestinal disturbances and suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) with antibiotics but we are very uncertain and the quality of the evidence is very low.\nAntibiotics were used alongside nasal saline irrigation and intranasal steroids (compared to placebo plus the same) in one study. It is not clear if there was an important difference in disease-specific HRQL after treatment (three months) or at three months after treatment was completed (low quality evidence). There may have been more people in the antibiotics group who felt they had 'improved' at the end of treatment, but there were also people who had worse symptoms in both groups (very low quality evidence). It is very uncertain if there was a difference in gastrointestinal disturbances between groups.\nWhen compared with intranasal steroids in people with chronic rhinosinusitis (without polyps), it was very uncertain if there was a difference in disease severity (using a combined score for four different symptoms) between the antibiotics and intranasal steroids groups in one study (low quality evidence). No information was given about adverse events.\nThe one study that compared antibiotics with oral steroids (in people with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps) did not present any effectiveness results that we could use. It was uncertain if there was any difference in gastrointestinal disturbances or skin irritation in the antibiotics group (very low quality evidence).\nThere were no reports of any serious adverse effects in any of the studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4224 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStem cell therapy (SCT) has been proposed as an alternative treatment for dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), nonetheless its effectiveness remains debatable.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of SCT in adults with non-ischaemic DCM.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase for relevant trials in November 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers in May 2020.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing stem/progenitor cells with no cells in adults with non-ischaemic DCM. We included co-interventions such as the administration of stem cell mobilizing agents. Studies were classified and analysed into three categories according to the comparison intervention, which consisted of no intervention/placebo, cell mobilization with cytokines, or a different mode of SCT.\nThe first two comparisons (no cells in the control group) served to assess the efficacy of SCT while the third (different mode of SCT) served to complement the review with information about safety and other information of potential utility for a better understanding of the effects of SCT.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We could not explore potential effect modifiers through subgroup analyses as they were deemed uninformative due to the scarce number of trials available. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created summary of findings tables using GRADEpro GDT. We focused our summary of findings on all-cause mortality, safety, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), performance status, and major adverse cardiovascular events.\nMain results\nWe included 13 RCTs involving 762 participants (452 cell therapy and 310 controls). Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. There were many shortcomings in the publications that did not allow a precise assessment of the risk of bias in many domains. Due to the nature of the intervention, the main source of potential bias was lack of blinding of participants (performance bias). Frequently, the format of the continuous data available was not ideal for use in the meta-analysis and forced us to seek strategies for transforming data in a usable format.\nWe are uncertain whether SCT reduces all-cause mortality in people with DCM compared to no intervention/placebo (mean follow-up 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.31; I² = 0%; studies = 7, participants = 361; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether SCT increases the risk of procedural complications associated with cells injection in people with DCM (data could not be pooled; studies = 7; participants = 361; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether SCT improves HRQoL (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.62, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.23; I² = 72%; studies = 5, participants = 272; very low-certainty evidence) and functional capacity (6-minute walk test) (mean difference (MD) 70.12 m, 95% CI –5.28 to 145.51; I² = 87%; studies = 5, participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). SCT may result in a slight functional class (New York Heart Association) improvement (data could not be pooled; studies = 6, participants = 398; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported major adverse cardiovascular events as defined in our protocol. SCT may not increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmia (data could not be pooled; studies = 8, participants = 504; low-certainty evidence).\nWhen comparing SCT to cell mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), we are uncertain whether SCT reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.31; I² = 39%; studies = 3, participants = 195; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether SCT increases the risk of procedural complications associated with cells injection (studies = 1, participants = 60; very low-certainty evidence). SCT may not improve HRQoL (MD 4.61 points, 95% CI –5.62 to 14.83; studies = 1, participants = 22; low-certainty evidence). SCT may improve functional capacity (6-minute walk test) (MD 140.14 m, 95% CI 119.51 to 160.77; I² = 0%; studies = 2, participants = 155; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported MACE as defined in our protocol or ventricular arrhythmia.\nThe most commonly reported outcomes across studies were based on physiological measures of cardiac function where there were some beneficial effects suggesting potential benefits of SCT in people with non-ischaemic DCM. However, it is unclear if this intermediate effects translates into clinical benefits for these patients.\nWith regard to specific aspects related to the modality of cell therapy and its delivery, uncertainties remain as subgroup analyses could not be performed as planned, making it necessary to wait for the publication of several studies that are currently in progress before any firm conclusion can be reached.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether SCT in people with DCM reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and procedural complications, improves HRQoL, and performance status (exercise capacity). SCT may improve functional class (NYHA), compared to usual care (no cells).\nSimilarly, when compared to G-CSF, we are also uncertain whether SCT in people with DCM reduces the risk of all-cause mortality although some studies within this comparison observed a favourable effect that should be interpreted with caution. SCT may not improve HRQoL but may improve to some extent performance status (exercise capacity). Very low-quality evidence reflects uncertainty regarding procedural complications. These suggested beneficial effects of SCT, although uncertain due to the very low certainty of the evidence, are accompanied by favourable effects on some physiological measures of cardiac function.\nPresently, the most effective mode of administration of SCT and the population that could benefit the most is unclear. Therefore, it seems reasonable that use of SCT in people with DCM is limited to clinical research settings. Results of ongoing studies are likely to modify these conclusions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "SCT versus control: very low-quality evidence reflects uncertainty regarding mortality, procedural complications, health-related quality of life and exercise capacity. Low-quality evidence suggests that SCT may slightly improve deterioration of heart function and may not increase the risk of abnormal heartbeats in people with DCM. No studies reported other relevant outcomes such as major cardiac adverse events.\nSTC plus cytokine versus control: very low-quality evidence reflects uncertainty regarding mortality. Low-quality evidence suggests that SCT plus cytokine may not improve health-related quality of life but may improve exercise capacity as well as some physiological measures related to cardiac function (although it is unclear to what extent these latter outcomes are associated with relevant clinical benefits for patients). Hence, the results should be interpreted with caution. Very low-quality evidence reflects uncertainty regarding procedural complications. No studies reported major cardiac adverse events or abnormal heartbeats.\nDue to the limited number of studies we could not perform analyses to identify which specific features of SCT and clinical characteristics of patients are associated with better results. Thus, more research is needed to establish the role of SCT in the treatment of DCM and the most effective therapies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4225 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCurrently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases (from their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction).\nMain results\nWe included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision.\nVaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women)\nReturn to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes.\nLaparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women)\nReturn to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I2 = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes.\nLH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women)\nWe are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups.\nRobotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women)\nNone of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes.\nSingle-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women)\nNone of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury.\nTotal laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women)\nNone of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications.\nTransvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women)\nWe are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported.\nOverall, adverse events were rare in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAmong women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found that vaginal hysterectomy probably results in a quicker return to normal activities than abdominal hysterectomy. If the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 42 days, then after vaginal hysterectomy it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other main outcomes. However, non-numerical data may suggest improved quality of life after vaginal hysterectomy compared to abdominal hysterectomy.\nLaparoscopic hysterectomy also probably results in a quicker return to normal activities than abdominal hysterectomy. Based on our findings, if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. However, laparoscopic hysterectomies are likely associated with greater risk of damaging the ureter (tube that carries urine from the kidney to the bladder). If the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy, between laparoscopic and robot-assisted hysterectomy, or between laparoscopic and natural orifice surgery for our main outcomes. Many studies did not include information about patient satisfaction or quality of life.\nWe conclude that vaginal hysterectomy should be performed whenever possible. Where vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, the laparoscopic approach has advantages over abdominal hysterectomy but greater risk of ureter injury. These pros and cons should be incorporated in the decision-making process with the patient.\nThe evidence is current to December 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4226 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnaemia affects about a quarter of the world's population. An estimated 50% of anaemic people have anaemia due to iron deficiency.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of iron therapies for the treatment of adults with anaemia who are not pregnant or lactating and do not have chronic kidney disease.\nSearch methods\nWe ran the search on 11 July 2013. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid SP), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus (EBSCO Host), the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science (ISI WOS) Scientific Citation Index (SCI)-EXPANDED (1970) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI)-Science (1990) and Clinicaltrials.gov; we also screened reference lists. An updated search was run on 24 November 2014 but the results have not yet been incorporated into the review.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full-text articles for selected references.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis when possible, when I2 was less than or equal to 80% using a fixed-effect or random-effects model, using Review Manager software. The range of point estimates for individual studies is presented when I2 > 80%.\nMain results\nWe included in this systematic review 4745 participants who were randomly assigned in 21 trials. Trials were conducted in a wide variety of clinical settings. Most trials included participants with mild to moderate anaemia and excluded participants who were allergic to iron therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias for one or more domains. We compared both oral iron and parenteral iron versus inactive controls and compared different iron preparations.\nThe comparison between oral iron and inactive control revealed no evidence of clinical benefit in terms of mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.61; four studies, N = 659; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged from 0.3 to 3.1 g/dL higher in the oral iron group than in the inactive control group. The proportion of participants who required blood transfusion was lower with oral iron than with inactive control (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; three studies, N = 546; very low-quality evidence). Evidence was inadequate for determination of the effect of parenteral iron on mortality versus oral iron (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.94; 10 studies, N = 2141; very low-quality evidence) or inactive control (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.69; six studies, N = 1009; very low-quality evidence). Haemoglobin levels were higher with parenteral iron than with oral iron (MD -0.50 g/dL, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.27; six studies, N = 769; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged between 0.3 and 3.0 g/dL higher in the parenteral iron group than in the inactive control group. Differences in the proportion of participants requiring blood transfusion between parenteral iron and oral iron groups (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.58; two studies, N = 371; very low-quality evidence) or between parenteral iron groups and inactive controls (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06; eight studies, N = 1315; very low-quality evidence) were imprecise. Average blood volume transfused was less in the parenteral iron group than in the oral iron group (MD -0.54 units, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.12; very low-quality evidence) based on one study involving 44 people. Differences between therapies in quality of life or in the proportion of participants with serious adverse events were imprecise (very low-quality evidence). No trials reported severe allergic reactions due to parenteral iron, suggesting that these are rare. Adverse effects related to oral iron treatment included nausea, diarrhoea and constipation; most were mild.\nComparisons of one iron preparation over another for mortality, haemoglobin or serious adverse events were imprecise. No information was available on quality of life. Thus, little evidence was found to support the use of one preparation or regimen over another.\nSubgroup analyses did not reveal consistent results; therefore we were unable to determine whether iron is useful in specific clinical situations, or whether iron therapy might be useful for people who are receiving erythropoietin.\nAuthors' conclusions\n• Very low-quality evidence suggests that oral iron might decrease the proportion of people who require blood transfusion, and no evidence indicates that it decreases mortality. Oral iron might be useful in adults who can tolerate the adverse events, which are usually mild.\n• Very low-quality evidence suggests that intravenous iron results in a modest increase in haemoglobin levels compared with oral iron or inactive control without clinical benefit.\n• No evidence can be found to show any advantage of one iron preparation or regimen over another.\n• Additional randomised controlled trials with low risk of bias and powered to measure clinically useful outcomes such as mortality, quality of life and blood transfusion requirements are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Future research\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Additional randomised controlled trials are required to determine whether iron treatment decreases death and blood transfusion requirements and improves quality of life. Such trials should be appropriately designed and should include a sufficiently large number of participants, to decrease the chance of erroneous conclusions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4227 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, such as methylphenidate, but uncertainty remains about its benefits and harms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of extended-release formulations of methylphenidate in adults diagnosed with ADHD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four clinical trial registries up to February 2021. We searched 12 drug regulatory databases for clinical trial data up to 13 May 2020. In addition, we cross-referenced all available trial identifiers, handsearched reference lists, searched pharmaceutical company databases, and contacted trial authors.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, double-blind, parallel-group trials comparing extended-release methylphenidate formulations at any dose versus placebo and other ADHD medications in adults diagnosed with ADHD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data. We assessed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and rating scales and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risks of bias, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed the data using a random-effects model. We assessed three design characteristics that may impair the trial results' 'generalisability'; exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity; responder selection based on previous experience with CNS stimulants; and risk of withdrawal effects. Our prespecified primary outcomes were functional outcomes, self-rated ADHD symptoms, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes included quality of life, ADHD symptoms rated by investigators and by peers such as family members, cardiovascular variables, severe psychiatric adverse events, and other adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 24 trials (5066 participants), of which 21 reported outcome data for this review. We also identified one ongoing study. We included documents from six drug regulatory agencies covering eight trials. Twenty-one trials had an outpatient setting and three were conducted in prisons. They were primarily conducted in North America and Europe. The median participant age was 36 years. Twelve trials (76% of participants) were industry-sponsored, four (14% of participants) were publicly funded with industry involvement, seven (10% of participants) were publicly funded, and one had unclear funding. The median trial duration was eight weeks. One trial was rated at overall unclear risk of bias and 20 trials were rated at overall high risk of bias, primarily due to unclear blinding of participants and investigators, attrition bias, and selective outcome reporting. All trials were impaired in at least one of the three design characteristics related to 'generalisability'; for example, they excluded participants with psychiatric comorbidity such as depression or anxiety, or included participants only with a previous positive response to methylphenidate, or similar drugs. This may limit the trials’ usefulness for clinical practice, as they may overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms.\nExtended-release methylphenidate versus placebo (up to 26 weeks)\nFor the primary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate had no effect on ‘days missed at work’ at 13-week follow-up (mean difference (MD) −0.15 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.11 to 1.81; 1 trial, 409 participants) or serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, CI 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 14 trials, 4078 participants), whereas methylphenidate improved self-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD −0.37, 95% CI −0.43 to −0.30; 16 trials, 3799 participants). For secondary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate improved self-rated quality of life (small effect; SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.25 to −0.05; 6 trials, 1888 participants), investigator-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD −0.42, 95% CI −0.49 to −0.36; 18 trials, 4183 participants), ADHD symptoms rated by peers such as family members (small-to-moderate effect; SMD −0.31, 95% CI −0.48 to −0.14; 3 trials, 1005 participants), and increased the risk of experiencing any adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.37; 14 trials, 4214 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as ‘very low’ for all outcomes, primarily due to high risk of bias and 'indirectness of the evidence'. One trial (419 participants) had follow-up at 52 weeks and two trials (314 participants) included active comparators, hence long-term and comparative evidence is limited.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low-certainty evidence that extended-release methylphenidate compared to placebo improved ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effects) measured on rating scales reported by participants, investigators, and peers such as family members. Methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' or serious adverse events, the effect on quality of life was small, and it increased the risk of several adverse effects. We rated the certainty of the evidence as ‘very low’ for all outcomes, due to high risk of bias, short trial durations, and limitations to the generalisability of the results. The benefits and harms of extended-release methylphenidate therefore remain uncertain.\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 search is current to February 2021. We found 24 studies (5066 participants) diagnosed with ADHD and we also identified one ongoing study. In each study the participants were divided into two groups; one group received extended-release methylphenidate and the other received placebo, also known as a 'sugar pill'. Two trials also included another ADHD drug as a third group. The median age (i.e. the middle age from a list of all ages arranged in order from youngest to eldest) of the participants was 36 years old. The studies were primarily conducted in Europe and North America in outpatients, which means that the participants were not hospitalised during the trials. The studies lasted around eight weeks. Half of the trials were sponsored by the companies that also sell the drugs, which may have affected the way these trials were designed."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4228 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPenetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) is a common type of trauma leading to admission to hospital, which often progresses to septic complications. Antibiotics are commonly administered as prophylaxis prior to laparotomy for PAT. However, an earlier Cochrane Review intending to compare antibiotics with placebo identified no relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Despite this, many RCTs have been carried out that compare different agents and durations of antibiotic therapy. To date, no systematic review of these trials has been performed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antibiotics in penetrating abdominal trauma, with respect to the type of agent administered and the duration of therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases for relevant randomised controlled trials, from database inception to 23 July 2019; Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Ovid Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase Ovid, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), and two clinical trials registers. We also searched reference lists from included studies. We applied no restrictions on language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs only. We included studies involving participants of all ages, which were conducted in secondary care hospitals only. We included studies of participants who had an isolated penetrating abdominal wound that breached the peritoneum, who were not already taking antibiotics.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo study authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard Cochrane methods. We aggregated study results using a random-effects model. We also conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA) to help reduce type I and II errors in our analyses.\nMain results\nWe included 29 RCTs, involving a total of 4458 participants. We deemed 23 trials to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain.\nWe are uncertain of the effect of a long course of antibiotic prophylaxis (> 24 hours) compared to a short course (≤ 24 hours) on abdominal surgical site infection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 1261 participants; very low-quality evidence), mortality (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.82; I² = 8%; 7 studies, 1261 participants; very low-quality evidence), or intra-abdominal infection (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.80; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 111 participants; very-low quality evidence).\nBased on very low-quality evidence from fifteen studies, involving 2020 participants, which compared different drug regimens with activity against three classes of gastrointestinal flora (gram positive, gram negative, anaerobic), we are uncertain whether there is a benefit of one regimen over another.\nTSA showed the majority of comparisons did not cross the alpha adjusted boundary for benefit or harm, or reached the required information size, indicating that further studies are required for these analyses. However, in the three analyses which crossed the boundary for futility, further studies are unlikely to show benefit or harm.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain about the effect of either the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, or the superiority of one drug regimen over another for penetrating abdominal trauma on abdominal surgical site infection rates, mortality, or intra-abdominal infections.\nFuture RCTs should be adequately powered, test currently used antibiotics, known to be effective against gut flora, use methodology to minimise the risk of bias, and adequately report the level of peritoneal contamination encountered at laparotomy.\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": "Because of the very low-quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether giving longer courses of antibiotics after penetrating injury reduces the rate of infections after an operation. We are also uncertain if one antibiotic treatment is better than any other that was tested in the trials."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4229 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) provide effective analgesia during the post-operative period but can cause acute kidney injury (AKI) when used peri-operatively (at or around the time of surgery). This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2007.\nObjectives\nThis review looked at the effect of NSAIDs used in the peri-operative period on post-operative kidney function in patients with normal kidney function.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 January 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 (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at the use of NSAIDs versus placebo for the treatment of post-operative pain in patients with normal kidney function were included.\nData collection and analysis\nData extraction was carried out independently by two authors as was assessment of risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses were used to assess the outcomes of AKI, change in serum creatinine (SCr), urine output, renal replacement therapy (RRT), death (all causes) and length of hospital stay.\nMain results\nWe identified 26 studies (8835 participants). Risk of bias was high in 17, unclear in 6and low in three studies. There was high risk of attrition bias in six studies.\nOnly two studies measured AKI. The use of NSAIDs had uncertain effects on the incidence of AKI compared to placebo (7066 participants: RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.96; I2 = 59%; very low certainty evidence). One study was stopped early by the data monitoring committee due to increased rates of AKI in the NSAID group. Moreover, both of these studies were examining NSAIDs for indications other than analgesia and therefore utilised relatively low doses.\nCompared to placebo, NSAIDs may slightly increase serum SCr (15 studies, 794 participants: MD 3.23 μmol/L, 95% CI -0.80 to 7.26; I2 = 63%; low certainty evidence). Studies displayed moderate to high heterogeneity and had multiple exclusion criteria including age and so were not representative of patients undergoing surgery. Three of these studies excluded patients if their creatinine rose post-operatively.\nNSAIDs may make little or no difference to post-operative urine output compared to placebo (6 studies, 149 participants: SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.27). No reliable conclusions could be drawn from these studies due to the differing units of measurements and measurement time points.\nIt is uncertain whether NSAIDs leads to the need for RRT because the certainty of this evidence is very low (2 studies, 7056 participants: RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.07; I2 = 26%); there were few events and the results were inconsistent.\nIt is uncertain whether NSAIDs lead to more deaths (2 studies, 312 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 11.12; I2 = 38%) or increased the length of hospital stay (3 studies, 410 participants: MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.72; I2 = 24%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall NSAIDs had uncertain effects on the risk of post-operative AKI, may slightly increase post-operative SCr, and it is uncertain whether NSAIDs lead to the need for RRT, death or increases the length of hospital stay. The available data therefore does not confirm the safety of NSAIDs in patients undergoing surgery. Further larger studies using the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes definition for AKI including patients with co-morbidities are required to confirm these findings. .\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 updated a previous review searching the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register until 4 January 2018 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NSAIDs with placebo in patients with normal kidney function undergoing surgery."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4230 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA variety of in-service emergency care training courses are currently being promoted as a strategy to improve the quality of care provided to seriously ill newborns and children in low-income countries. Most courses have been developed in high-income countries. However, whether these courses improve the ability of health professionals to provide appropriate care in low-income countries remains unclear. This is the first update of the original review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of in-service emergency care training on health professionals' treatment of seriously ill newborns and children in low-income countries.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, part of The Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com); MEDLINE, Ovid SP; EMBASE, Ovid SP; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge/Science and eight other databases. We performed database searches in February 2015. We also searched clinical trial registries, websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. We applied no date, language or publication status restrictions when conducting the searches.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted-time-series studies that compared the effects of in-service emergency care training versus usual care were eligible for inclusion. We included only hospital-based studies and excluded community-based studies. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias and confidence in effect estimates (certainty of evidence) for each outcome using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We described results and presented them in GRADE tables.\nMain results\nWe identified no new studies in this update. Two randomised trials (which were included in the original review) met the review eligibility criteria. In the first trial, newborn resuscitation training compared with usual care improved provider performance of appropriate resuscitation (trained 66% vs usual care 27%, risk ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75 to 3.42; moderate certainty evidence) and reduced inappropriate resuscitation (trained mean 0.53 vs usual care 0.92, mean difference 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). Effect on neonatal mortality was inconclusive (trained 28% vs usual care 25%, risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.48; N = 27 deaths; low certainty evidence). Findings from the second trial suggest that essential newborn care training compared with usual care probably slightly improves delivery room newborn care practices (assessment of breathing, preparedness for resuscitation) (moderate certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn-service neonatal emergency care courses probably improve health professionals' treatment of seriously ill babies in the short term. Further multi-centre randomised trials evaluating the effects of in-service emergency care training on long-term outcomes (health professional practice and patient outcomes) are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What question was the review asking?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This is the first update of the original Cochrane review, whose objective was to find out whether additional emergency care training programmes can improve the ability of health workers in poor countries to care for seriously ill newborns and children admitted to hospitals. Researchers at The Cochrane Collaboration searched for all studies that could answer this question and found two relevant studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4231 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWhile laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day-surgery and overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and anticonvulsant analgesics in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of different analgesics in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (WHO ICTRP) to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different pharmacological interventions with no intervention or inactive controls for outcomes related to benefit in this review. We considered comparative non-randomised studies with regards to treatment-related harms. We also considered trials that compared one class of drug with another class of drug for this review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe included 25 trials with 2505 participants randomised to the different pharmacological agents and inactive controls. All the trials were at unclear risk of bias. Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Participants were allowed to take additional analgesics as required in 24 of the trials. The pharmacological interventions in all the included trials were aimed at preventing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were considerable differences in the pharmacological agents used and the methods of administration. The estimated effects of the intervention on the proportion of participants who were discharged as day-surgery, the length of hospital stay, or the time taken to return to work were imprecise in all the comparisons in which these outcomes were reported (very low quality evidence). There was no mortality in any of the groups in the two trials that reported mortality (183 participants, very low quality evidence). Differences in serious morbidity outcomes between the groups were imprecise across all the comparisons (very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported patient quality of life or time taken to return to normal activity. The pain at 4 to 8 hours was generally reduced by about 1 to 2 cm on the visual analogue scale of 1 to 10 cm in the comparisons involving the different pharmacological agents and inactive controls (low or very low quality evidence). The pain at 9 to 24 hours was generally reduced by about 0.5 cm (a modest reduction) on the visual analogue scale of 1 to 10 cm in the comparisons involving the different pharmacological agents and inactive controls (low or very low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence of very low quality that different pharmacological agents including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioid analgesics, and anticonvulsant analgesics reduce pain scores in people at low anaesthetic risk undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the decision to use these drugs has to weigh the clinically small reduction in pain against uncertain evidence of serious adverse events associated with many of these agents. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "About 10% to 15% of the adult western population have gallstones. Between 1% and 4% become symptomatic each year. Removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy) is the mainstay treatment for symptomatic gallstones. More than half a million cholecystectomies are performed per year in the US alone. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (removal of gallbladder through a keyhole, also known as port) is now the preferred method of cholecystectomy.\nLaparoscopic surgery is associated with less pain than open surgery for removal of the gallbladder but postoperative pain is one the major reasons for delayed hospital discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Administration of painkillers may be an effective way of decreasing the pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The different types of painkillers include those that decrease the inflammation (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or NSAIDS), which include drugs that are available over-the-counter such as paracetamol and ibuprofen and other drugs that are not available over-the-counter such as diclofenac; opium-like painkillers such as codeine and morphine, and some painkillers that are used to treat fits but also possess the ability to decrease the pain such as gabapentin and pregabalin. The last two classes of drugs are available only as prescription drugs except for low dose codeine in some countries. The benefits and harms of giving painkillers on a regular basis in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown. We sought to answer these questions by reviewing the medical literature and obtaining information from randomised clinical trials for benefits (where people are randomly allocated to one of two or more treatment groups) and comparative non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms. We compared the regular use of painkillers with no regular use of painkillers (ie, painkillers were administered as and when required) and the different type of painkillers."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4232 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often become transiently hypoxaemic (low oxygen levels in blood) on exercise, necessitating oxygen therapy to improve breathlessness and exercise capacity and to reduce disability. Ambulatory oxygen therapy refers to provision of oxygen therapy during exercise and activities of daily living. Ambulatory oxygen therapy is often used by patients on long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) during exercise or by non-LTOT users with or without resting hypoxaemia when they show evidence of exercise de-saturation and demonstrate improvement in exercise capacity with supplemental oxygen.\nObjectives\nTo determine the longer-term efficacy of ambulatory oxygen therapy only in patients with COPD who do not meet the criteria for LTOT, with respect to improvement in exercise capacity, mortality, quality of life and other relevant measures of improvement.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, was searched. Online clinical trial registers, including Controlled Clinical Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), government registries (clinicaltrials.gov) and World Health Organization (WHO) registries (www.who.int/trialsearch), were screened for ongoing and recently completed studies. Bibliographies of included studies were searched for additional trials that may meet the inclusion criteria and were not retrieved by the above search strategy. Authors of identified trials were contacted to provide other published and unpublished studies. Searches were current as of November 2012.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare ambulatory oxygen therapy provided through portable oxygen cylinders/battery-powered devices or liquid oxygen canisters versus placebo air cylinders, usual medical care or co-intervention in study participants with COPD who did not meet criteria for LTOT.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nFour studies met the inclusion criteria (331 participants), with two studies producing a statistically and clinically significant benefit in favour of the intervention for dyspnoea post exercise.The quality of life domain for all four included studies produced a statistically significant benefit for the subcategories of dyspnoea and fatigue, in favour of the oxygen group (dyspnoea mean difference (MD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.45; P value 0.002; fatigue MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.31; P value 0.009). No evidence of any effect was reported for survival, and limited benefits were observed for exercise capacity (as measured by step test and distance walk test), with one study showing a statistically significant improvement in the number of steps taken in the oxygen group for group N-of-1 studies only. No other statistically significant benefits were observed for exercise capacity among the other trials or individual N-of-1 studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn patients with COPD with moderate hypoxia, current evidence on ambulatory oxygen therapy reveals improvements in dyspnoea post exercise and in the dyspnoea and fatigue domain of quality of life. However, evidence for the clinical utility and effectiveness of ambulatory oxygen in improving mortality and exercise capacity was not evident in this review. Methodologically rigorous RCTs with sufficient power to detect a difference are required to investigate the role of ambulatory oxygen in the management of COPD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found that ambulatory oxygen therapy reduced breathlessness and decreased the number of patients who felt tired. However, the distance that people could walk in five to six minutes and survival (death rate) did not change."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4233 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPre-eclampsia is associated with deficient intravascular production of prostacyclin, a vasodilator, and excessive production of thromboxane, a vasoconstrictor and stimulant of platelet aggregation. These observations led to the hypotheses that antiplatelet agents, low-dose aspirin in particular, might prevent or delay development of pre-eclampsia.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of antiplatelet agents, such as aspirin and dipyridamole, when given to women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 March 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search in September 2019 and added the results to the awaiting classification section of the review.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised trials comparing antiplatelet agents with either placebo or no antiplatelet agent were included. Studies only published in abstract format were eligible for inclusion if sufficient information was available. We would have included cluster-randomised trials in the analyses along with individually-randomised trials, if any had been identified in our search strategy. Quasi-random studies were excluded. Participants were pregnant women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia. Interventions were administration of an antiplatelet agent (such as low-dose aspirin or dipyridamole), comparisons were either placebo or no antiplatelet.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For this update we incorporated individual participant data (IPD) from trials with this available, alongside aggregate data (AD) from trials where it was not, in order to enable reliable subgroup analyses and inclusion of two key new outcomes. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.\nMain results\nSeventy-seven trials (40,249 women, and their babies) were included, although three trials (relating to 233 women) did not contribute data to the meta-analysis. Nine of the trials contributing data were large (> 1000 women recruited), accounting for 80% of women recruited. Although the trials took place in a wide range of countries, all of the nine large trials involved only women in high-income and/or upper middle-income countries. IPD were available for 36 trials (34,514 women), including all but one of the large trials. Low-dose aspirin alone was the intervention in all the large trials, and most trials overall. Dose in the large trials was 50 mg (1 trial, 1106 women), 60 mg (5 trials, 22,322 women), 75mg (1 trial, 3697 women) 100 mg (1 trial, 3294 women) and 150 mg (1 trial, 1776 women). Most studies were either low risk of bias or unclear risk of bias; and the large trials were all low risk of bas.\nAntiplatelet agents versus placebo/no treatment\nThe use of antiplatelet agents reduced the risk of proteinuric pre-eclampsia by 18% (36,716 women, 60 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.88; high-quality evidence), number needed to treat for one women to benefit (NNTB) 61 (95% CI 45 to 92). There was a small (9%) reduction in the RR for preterm birth <37 weeks (35,212 women, 47 trials; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95, high-quality evidence), NNTB 61 (95% CI 42 to 114), and a 14% reduction infetal deaths, neonatal deaths or death before hospital discharge (35,391 babies, 52 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95; high-quality evidence), NNTB 197 (95% CI 115 to 681). Antiplatelet agents slightly reduced the risk of small-for-gestational age babies (35,761 babies, 50 trials; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92; high-quality evidence), NNTB 146 (95% CI 90 to 386), and pregnancies with serious adverse outcome (a composite outcome including maternal death, baby death, pre-eclampsia, small-for-gestational age, and preterm birth) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96; 17,382 women; 13 trials, high-quality evidence), NNTB 54 (95% CI 34 to 132). Antiplatelet agents probably slightly increase postpartum haemorrhage > 500 mL (23,769 women, 19 trials; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; moderate-quality evidence due to clinical heterogeneity), and they probably marginally increase the risk of placental abruption, although for this outcome the evidence was downgraded due to a wide confidence interval including the possibility of no effect (30,775 women; 29 trials; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54; moderate-quality evidence).\nData from two large trials which assessed children at aged 18 months (including results from over 5000 children), did not identify clear differences in development between the two groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAdministering low-dose aspirin to pregnant women led to small-to-moderate benefits, including reductions in pre-eclampsia (16 fewer per 1000 women treated), preterm birth (16 fewer per 1000 treated), the baby being born small-for-gestational age (seven fewer per 1000 treated) and fetal or neonatal death (five fewer per 1000 treated). Overall, administering antiplatelet agents to 1000 women led to 20 fewer pregnancies with serious adverse outcomes. The quality of evidence for all these outcomes was high. Aspirin probably slightly increased the risk of postpartum haemorrhage of more than 500 mL, however, the quality of evidence for this outcome was downgraded to moderate, due to concerns of clinical heterogeneity in measurements of blood loss. Antiplatelet agents probably marginally increase placental abruption, but the quality of the evidence was downgraded to moderate due to low event numbers and thus wide 95% CI.\nOverall, antiplatelet agents improved outcomes, and at these doses appear to be safe. Identifying women who are most likely to respond to low-dose aspirin would improve targeting of treatment. As almost all the women in this review were recruited to the trials after 12 weeks' gestation, it is unclear whether starting treatment before 12 weeks’ would have additional benefits without any increase in adverse effects. While there was some indication that higher doses of aspirin would be more effective, further studies would be warranted to examine this.\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 randomised controlled trials in March 2018. Our review includes 77 trials, involving 40,249 women and their babies, although it wasn't possible to include results form three of these trials (233 women) . We included information about the results for women and babies in two different formats: 36 trials (34,514 women) reported 'individual participant data' (IPD), where we received information about each of the individuals involved; all the other trials reported 'aggregate data' (AD), where each study reports the average information about the individuals involved in the study. By using IPD, we could conduct very thorough and accurate analyses; and by combining both the AD and the IPD, we could include all the available information on this question.\nNine of the trials included more than 1000 women, and all of these large trials were at low risk of bias. Low-dose aspirin alone was the intervention in all the large trials, and most trials overall. Almost all the women were recruited to the trials after 12 weeks' gestation. Most women were at risk of developing pre-eclampsia, and the trials included women with normal blood pressure, existing long-term high blood pressure or pregnancy-induced high blood pressure. High-quality evidence showed that the use of antiplatelet agents reduced the risk of pre-eclampsia by 18%, or less than one sixth (36,716 women, 60 trials). This meant that 61 women had to be treated with an antiplatelet drug for one woman to benefit by avoiding pre-eclampsia. The risk of preterm birth was reduced by 9% (35,212 women, 47 trials) and the number of infant deaths before or around the time of birth was reduced by 15% (35,391 women, 52 trials). Antiplatelet agents reduced the risk of small-for-gestational-age babies (35,761 mothers, 50 trials) and pregnancies with serious adverse outcomes (17,382 mothers; 13 trials). Moderate-quality evidence showed that only slightly more women lost more than 500 mL of blood immediately after birth, termed postpartum haemorrhage (23,769 mothers, 19 trials), indicating that aspirin is safe. Doses of aspirin less than 75 mg appear to be safe. Higher doses might be better, but we do not know whether they increase adverse effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4234 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common orthopaedic operations performed worldwide. Painful osteoarthritis of the hip is the primary indication for THA. Following THA, people have conventionally been provided with equipment, such as raised toilet seats and chairs, and educated to avoid activities that could cause the hip joint to be in a position of flexion over 90 degrees, or adduction or rotation past the midline. These aspects of occupational therapy have been advocated to reduce the risks of prosthesis dislocation. However, the appropriateness of these recommendations has been questioned.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of provision of assistive devices, education on hip precautions, environmental modifications and training in activities of daily living (ADL) and extended ADL (EADL) for people undergoing THA.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (1946 to April 2016), EMBASE (1947 to April 2016), the Cochrane Library including CENTRAL (Issue 4 of 12, 2016), Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Economic Evaluations Database (EED), CINAHL, PEDro and CIRRIE from inception to April 2016. In addition we checked Controlled Clinical Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, the National Institutes of Health Trial Registry, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and the OpenGrey database from inception to April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of the provision of assistive devices, education on hip precautions, environmental modifications, or training in ADL and EADL for people undergoing THA. The main outcomes of interest were pain, function, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), global assessment of treatment success, reoperation rate, hip dislocation and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recognised by Cochrane. We conducted a systematic literature search using several databases and contacted corresponding authors, appraised the evidence using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, analysed the data using a narrative analysis approach (as it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in interventions), and interpreted all outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included three trials with a total of 492 participants who had received 530 THA. The evidence presented with a high risk of performance, detection and reporting bias.\nOne study (81 participants) compared outcomes for participants randomised to the provision of hip precautions, equipment and functional restrictions versus no provision of hip precautions, equipment or functional restrictions. Due to the quality of evidence being very low, we are uncertain if the provision of hip precautions, equipment and functional restrictions improved function measured using the Harris Hip Score at 12 month follow-up, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured by the Short Form-12 at four week follow-up, compared to not providing this. There were no incidences of hip dislocation or adverse events in either group during the initial 12 postoperative months. The study did not measure pain score, global assessment of treatment success or total adverse events.\nOne study (265 participants; 303 THAs) evaluated the provision of hip precautions with versus without the prescription of postoperative equipment and restrictions to functional activities. Due to the quality of evidence being very low, we are uncertain if perceived satisfaction in the rate of recovery differed in people who were not prescribed postoperative equipment and restrictions (135/151 satisfied) compared to those prescribed equipment and restrictions (113/152) (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.93; 265 participants, one trial; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 7). Due to the low quality evidence, we are uncertain if the incidence of hip dislocation differed between participants provided with hip precautions with (1/152) compared to without providing equipment or restrictions post-THA (0/151) (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.59). The study did not measure pain, function, HRQOL, re-operation rates or total adverse events.\nOne study (146 participants) investigated the provision of an enhanced postoperative education and rehabilitation service on hospital discharge to promote functional ADL versus a conventional rehabilitation intervention in the community. This study was of very low quality evidence. We were uncertain if the provision of enhanced postoperative education and rehabilitation improved function at six months follow-up, when assessed using the Objective and Subjective Functional Capability Index (146 participants, one trial; P > 0.05; no numerical results provided) compared to conventional rehabilitation. The study did not measure pain score, HRQOL, global assessment of treatment success, hip dislocation, re-operation rate or total adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low quality evidence is available from single trials, thus we are uncertain if hip precautions with or without the addition of equipment and functional restrictions are effective in preventing dislocation and improving outcomes after THA. There is also insufficient evidence to support or refute the adoption of a postoperative community rehabilitation programme consisting of functional reintegration and education compared to conventional rehabilitation strategies based on functional outcomes.\nFurther high-quality trials are warranted to assess the outcomes of different occupational therapy interventions both in the short and longer-term for those who undergo THA. An assessment of the impact of such interventions on pain and restriction on personal ADL, EADL and instrumental ADL is needed, and also of functional integration-type interventions rather than just hip precautions, equipment and restrictions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This Cochrane review is current to 29 April 2016. We searched the available evidence and included three studies, which had 492 people who had received a THA. Two of these studies investigated providing people with equipment, such as raised toilet seats and rails, and restricting their body movements (one of these studies also provided people with physiotherapy). One study investigated teaching participants about doing certain activities of daily living in a safe way to promote self-care without the risk of dislocating the new hip. The interventions were different and thus we did not combine the results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4235 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOverconsumption of food, alcohol, and tobacco products increases the risk of non-communicable diseases. Interventions to change characteristics of physical micro-environments where people may select or consume these products - including shops, restaurants, workplaces, and schools – are of considerable public health policy and research interest. This review addresses two types of intervention within such environments: altering the availability (the range and/or amount of options) of these products, or their proximity (the distance at which they are positioned) to potential consumers.\nObjectives\n1. To assess the impact on selection and consumption of altering the availability or proximity of (a) food (including non-alcoholic beverages), (b) alcohol, and (c) tobacco products.\n2. To assess the extent to which the impact of these interventions is modified by characteristics of: i. studies, ii. interventions, and iii. participants.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and seven other published or grey literature databases, as well as trial registries and key websites, up to 23 July 2018, followed by citation searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials with between-participants (parallel group) or within-participants (cross-over) designs. Eligible studies compared effects of exposure to at least two different levels of availability of a product or its proximity, and included a measure of selection or consumption of the manipulated product.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used a novel semi-automated screening workflow and applied standard Cochrane methods to select eligible studies, collect data, and assess risk of bias. In separate analyses for availability interventions and proximity interventions, we combined results using random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression models to estimate summary effect sizes (as standardised mean differences (SMDs)) and to investigate associations between summary effect sizes and selected study, intervention, or participant characteristics. We rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 24 studies, with the majority (20/24) giving concerns about risk of bias. All of the included studies investigated food products; none investigated alcohol or tobacco. The majority were conducted in laboratory settings (14/24), with adult participants (17/24), and used between-participants designs (19/24). All studies were conducted in high-income countries, predominantly in the USA (14/24).\nSix studies investigated availability interventions, of which two changed the absolute number of different options available, and four altered the relative proportion of less-healthy (to healthier) options. Most studies (4/6) manipulated snack foods or drinks. For selection outcomes, meta-analysis of three comparisons from three studies (n = 154) found that exposure to fewer options resulted in a large reduction in selection of the targeted food(s): SMD −1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) −1.90 to −0.37) (low certainty evidence). For consumption outcomes, meta-analysis of three comparisons from two studies (n = 150) found that exposure to fewer options resulted in a moderate reduction in consumption of those foods, but with considerable uncertainty: SMD −0.55 (95% CI −1.27 to 0.18) (low certainty evidence).\nEighteen studies investigated proximity interventions. Most (14/18) changed the distance at which a snack food or drink was placed from the participants, whilst four studies changed the order of meal components encountered along a line. For selection outcomes, only one study with one comparison (n = 41) was identified, which found that food placed farther away resulted in a moderate reduction in its selection: SMD −0.65 (95% CI −1.29 to −0.01) (very low certainty evidence). For consumption outcomes, meta-analysis of 15 comparisons from 12 studies (n = 1098) found that exposure to food placed farther away resulted in a moderate reduction in its consumption: SMD −0.60 (95% CI −0.84 to −0.36) (low certainty evidence). Meta-regression analyses indicated that this effect was greater: the farther away the product was placed; when only the targeted product(s) was available; when participants were of low deprivation status; and when the study was at high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence suggests that changing the number of available food options or altering the positioning of foods could contribute to meaningful changes in behaviour, justifying policy actions to promote such changes within food environments. However, the certainty of this evidence as assessed by GRADE is low or very low. To enable more certain and generalisable conclusions about these potentially important effects, further research is warranted in real-world settings, intervening across a wider range of foods - as well as alcohol and tobacco products - and over sustained time periods.\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": "Mindful of its limitations, the current evidence suggests that changing the number of available food options or changing where foods are positioned could contribute to meaningful changes in behaviour, justifying policy actions to promote such changes to food environments. However, more high-quality studies in real-world settings are needed to make this finding more certain."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4236 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset, reaches a peak within 10 minutes and in which at least four of 13 characteristic symptoms are experienced, including racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, stomach churning, faintness and breathlessness. Panic disorder is common in the general population with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions. Amongst pharmacological agents, antidepressants and benzodiazepines are the mainstay of treatment for panic disorder. Different classes of antidepressants have been compared; and the British Association for Psychopharmacology, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) consider antidepressants (mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)) as the first-line treatment for panic disorder, due to their more favourable adverse effect profile over monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). In addition to antidepressants, benzodiazepines are widely prescribed for the treatment of panic disorder.\nObjectives\nTo assess the evidence for the effects of antidepressants and benzodiazepines for panic disorder in adults.\nSearch methods\nThe Specialised Register of the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group (CCMDCTR) to 11 September 2015. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-) and PsycINFO (1967-). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. We contacted experts in this field for supplemental data.\nSelection criteria\nAll double-blind randomised controlled trials allocating adult patients with panic disorder to antidepressants or benzodiazepines versus any other active treatment with antidepressants or benzodiazepines.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were entered in RevMan 5.3 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.\nMain results\nThirty-five studies, including 6785 participants overall (of which 5365 in the arms of interest (antidepressant and benzodiazepines as monotherapy)) were included in this review; however, since studies addressed many different comparisons, only a few trials provided data for primary outcomes. We found low-quality evidence suggesting no difference between antidepressants and benzodiazepines in terms of response rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.47; participants = 215; studies = 2). Very low-quality evidence suggested a benefit for benzodiazepines compared to antidepressants in terms of dropouts due to any cause, even if confidence interval (CI) ranges from almost no difference to benefit with benzodiazepines (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.63; participants = 1449; studies = 7). We found some evidence suggesting that serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are better tolerated than TCAs (when looking at the number of patients experiencing adverse effects). We failed to find clinically significant differences between individual benzodiazepines. The majority of studies did not report details on random sequence generation and allocation concealment; similarly, no details were provided about strategies to ensure blinding. The study protocol was not available for almost all studies so it is difficult to make a judgment on the possibility of outcome reporting bias. Information on adverse effects was very limited.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe identified studies are not sufficient to comprehensively address the objectives of the present review. The majority of studies enrolled a small number of participants and did not provide data for all the outcomes specified in the protocol. For these reasons most of the analyses were underpowered and this limits the overall completeness of evidence. In general, based on the results of the current review, the possible role of antidepressants and benzodiazepines should be assessed by the clinician on an individual basis. The choice of which antidepressant and/or benzodiazepine is prescribed can not be made on the basis of this review only, and should be based on evidence of antidepressants and benzodiazepines efficacy and tolerability, including data from placebo-controlled studies, as a whole. Data on long-term tolerability issues associated with antidepressants and benzodiazepines exposure should also be carefully considered.\nThe present review highlights the need for further higher-quality studies comparing antidepressants with benzodiazepines, which should be conducted with high-methodological standards and including pragmatic outcome measures to provide clinicians with useful and practical data. Data from the present review will be included in a network meta-analysis of psychopharmacological treatment in panic disorder, which will hopefully provide further useful information on this issue.\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": "We did not find substantial differences between antidepressants and benzodiazepines in terms of efficacy and tolerability. There was not enough information to compare any differences in adverse effects. However, our findings are limited in the following ways: few studies contributed to each analysis, some studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and only short-term outcomes were assessed. The quality of the available evidence was mainly low, meaning that further research would be very likely to have an important impact on these results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4237 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a huge challenge and burden to patients, healthcare systems and society. The increased proportion of older adults in the world population means that the absolute number of hip fractures is rising rapidly across the globe. The majority of hip fractures are treated surgically. This review evaluates evidence for types of internal fixation implants used in joint-preserving surgery for intracapsular hip fractures.\nObjectives\nTo determine the relative effects (benefits and harms) of different implants for the internal fixation of intracapsular hip fractures in older adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, and National Technical Information Service in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted backward-citation searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing implants used for internal fixation of fragility intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in older adults. Types of implants were smooth pins (these include pins with fold-out hooks), screws, or fixed angle plates. We excluded studies in which all or most fractures were caused by specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or were the result of a high energy trauma.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for seven outcomes: activities of daily living (ADL), delirium, functional status, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mobility, mortality (reported within four months of surgery as early mortality, and at 12 months since surgery), and unplanned return to theatre for treating a complication resulting directly or indirectly from the primary procedure (such as deep infection or non-union). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 38 studies (32 RCTs, six quasi-RCTs) with 8585 participants with 8590 intracapsular fractures. The mean ages of participants in the studies ranged from 60 to 84 years; 73% were women, and 38% of fractures were undisplaced.\nWe report here the findings of the four main comparisons, which were between different categories of implants.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the outcomes for imprecision (when data were available from insufficient numbers of participants or the confidence interval (CI) was wide), study limitations (e.g. high or unclear risks of bias), and inconsistency (when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity).\nSmooth pins versus fixed angle plate (four studies, 1313 participants)\nWe found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in independent mobility with no more than one walking stick (1 study, 112 participants), early mortality (1 study, 383 participants), mortality at 12 months (2 studies, 661 participants), and unplanned return to theatre (3 studies, 736 participants). No studies reported on ADL, delirium, functional status, or HRQoL.\nScrews versus fixed angle plates (11 studies, 2471 participants)\nWe found low-certainty evidence of no clinically important differences between the two implant types in functional status using WOMAC (MD -3.18, 95% CI -6.35 to -0.01; 2 studies, 498 participants; range of scores from 0 to 96, lower values indicate better function), and HRQoL using EQ-5D (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 2 studies, 521 participants; range -0.654 (worst), 0 (dead), 1 (best)). We also found low-certainty evidence showing little or no difference between the two implant types in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.31; 7 studies, 1690 participants), and unplanned return to theatre (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.26; 11 studies, 2321 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in independent mobility (1 study, 70 participants), and early mortality (3 studies, 467 participants). No studies reported on ADL or delirium.\nScrews versus smooth pins (seven studies, 1119 participants)\nWe found low-certainty evidence of no or little difference between the two implant types in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1005 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in early mortality (3 studies, 584 participants) and unplanned return to theatre (5 studies, 862 participants). No studies reported on ADL, delirium, functional status, HRQoL, or mobility.\nScrews or smooth pins versus fixed angle plates (15 studies, 3784 participants)\nIn this comparison, we combined data from the first two comparison groups. We found low-certainty evidence of no or little difference between the two groups of implants in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI.083 to 1.31; 7 studies, 1690 participants) and unplanned return to theatre (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; 14 studies, 3057 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two groups of implants in independent mobility (2 studies, 182 participants), and early mortality (4 studies, 850 participants). We found no additional evidence to support the findings for functional status or HRQoL as reported in 'Screws versus fixed angle plates'. No studies reported ADL or delirium.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between screws and fixed angle plates in functional status, HRQoL, mortality at 12 months, or unplanned return to theatre; and between screws and pins in mortality at 12 months. The limited and very low-certainty evidence for the outcomes for which data were available for the smooth pins versus fixed angle plates comparison, as well as the other outcomes for which data were available for the screws and fixed angle plates, and screws and pins comparisons means we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect for these outcomes. Additional RCTs would increase the certainty of the evidence. We encourage such studies to report outcomes consistent with the core outcome set for hip fracture, including long-term quality of life indicators such as ADL and mobility.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Screws or pins compared with fixed angle plates\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "(15 studies, 3784 participants): we found no evidence of difference between these implants in deaths at 12 months, or additional surgery. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between implants in independent walking and early death. We found no additional evidence for hip function or HRQoL.\nNo studies in the review reported activities of daily living or delirium."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4238 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIdiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD) is a neurodegenerative disorder, with the severity of the disability usually increasing with disease duration. IPD affects patients' health-related quality of life, disability, and impairment. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving outcomes in patients with IPD, but a possible adjunct to rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in IPD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of tDCS in improving motor and non-motor symptoms in people with IPD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases (until February 2016): the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library ; 2016 , Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Rehabdata, and Inspec. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we searched trial registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised controlled cross-over trials that compared tDCS versus control in patients with IPD for improving health-related quality of life , disability, and impairment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality (JM and MP) and extracted data (BE and JM). If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports.\nMain results\nWe included six trials with a total of 137 participants. We found two studies with 45 participants examining the effects of tDCS compared to control (sham tDCS) on our primary outcome measure, impairment, as measured by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). There was very low quality evidence for no effect of tDCS on change in global UPDRS score ( mean difference (MD) -7.10 %, 95% confidence interval (CI -19.18 to 4.97; P = 0.25, I² = 21%, random-effects model). However, there was evidence of an effect on UPDRS part III motor subsection score at the end of the intervention phase (MD -14.43%, 95% CI -24.68 to -4.18; P = 0.006, I² = 2%, random-effects model; very low quality evidence). One study with 25 participants measured the reduction in off and on time with dyskinesia, but there was no evidence of an effect (MD 0.10 hours, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.34; P = 0.41, I² = 0%, random-effects model; and MD 0.00 hours, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; P = 1, I² = 0%, random- effects model, respectively; very low quality evidence).\nTwo trials with a total of 41 participants measured gait speed using measures of timed gait at the end of the intervention phase, revealing no evidence of an effect ( standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.50, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.18; P = 0.14, I² = 11%, random-effects model; very low quality evidence). Another secondary outcome was health-related quality of life and we found one study with 25 participants reporting on the physical health and mental health aspects of health-related quality of life (MD 1.00 SF-12 score, 95% CI -5.20 to 7.20; I² = 0%, inverse variance method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence; and MD 1.60 SF-12 score, 95% CI -5.08 to 8.28; I² = 0%, inverse variance method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence, respectively). We found no study examining the effects of tDCS for improving activities of daily living. In two of six studies, dropouts , adverse events, or deaths occurring during the intervention phase were reported. There was insufficient evidence that dropouts , adverse effects, or deaths were higher with intervention (risk difference (RD) 0.04, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.12; P = 0.40, I² = 0%, random-effects model; very low quality evidence).\nWe found one trial with a total of 16 participants examining the effects of tDCS plus movement therapy compared to control (sham tDCS) plus movement therapy on our secondary outcome, gait speed at the end of the intervention phase, revealing no evidence of an effect (MD 0.05 m/s, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.25; inverse variance method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence). We found no evidence of an effect regarding differences in dropouts and adverse effects between intervention and control groups (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.21; Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of tDCS for reducing off time ( when the symptoms are not controlled by the medication) and on time with dyskinesia ( time that symptoms are controlled but the person still experiences involuntary muscle movements ) , and for improving health- related quality of life, disability, and impairment in patients with IPD. Evidence of very low quality indicates no difference in dropouts and adverse events between tDCS and control groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To assess the effectiveness of electrical brain stimulation in improving motor and non-motor symptoms in people with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD) ."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4239 | [
{
"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: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "During pregnancy, up to one in 10 women have blood pressure readings that are above normal. For some women, their blood pressure remains slightly high (termed ‘mild to moderate high blood pressure’), with no apparent complications. Some of these women go on to develop very high blood pressure. Very high blood pressure can result in a medical emergency if it affects the woman’s organs (such as her liver, or brain in the form of a stroke). Also, it can seriously affect the growth and health of her baby.\nDrugs that lower blood pressure are used to treat mild to moderate high blood pressure, in the belief that this treatment will prevent the blood pressure from continuing to rise. Over the years, information from good quality research studies has been contradictory, so we cannot be sure if this drug treatment is worthwhile."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4240 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002. Osteoarthritis is a disease that affects the synovial joints, causing degeneration and destruction of hyaline cartilage and subchondral bone. Electromagnetic field therapy is currently used by physiotherapists and may promote growth and repair of bone and cartilage. It is based on principles of physics which include Wolff's law, the piezoelectric effect and the concept of streaming potentials.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of electromagnetic fields for the treatment of osteoarthritis as compared to placebo or sham.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), PreMEDLINE for trials published before 1966, MEDLINE from 1966 to October 2013, CINAHL and PEDro up to and including October 2013. Electronic searches were complemented by handsearches.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of electromagnetic fields in osteoarthritis, with four or more weeks treatment duration. We included papers in any language.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review and resolved differences by consensus with a third review author. We extracted data using pre-developed data extraction forms. The same review authors assessed the risk of bias of the trials independently using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We extracted outcomes for osteoarthritis from the publications according to Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) guidelines. We expressed results for continuous outcome measures as mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We pooled dichotomous outcome measures using risk ratio (RR) and calculated the number needed to treat (NNT).\nMain results\nNine studies with a total of 636 participants with osteoarthritis were included, six of which were added in this update of the review. Selective outcome reporting was unclear in all nine included studies due to inadequate reporting of study design and conduct, and there was high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data in three studies. The overall risk of bias across the nine studies was low for the other domains.\nParticipants who were randomised to electromagnetic field treatment rated their pain relief 15.10 points more on a scale of 0 to 100 (MD 15.10, 95% CI 9.08 to 21.13; absolute improvement 15%) after 4 to 26 weeks' treatment compared with placebo. Electromagnetic field treatment had no statistically significant effect on physical function (MD 4.55, 95% CI -2.23 to 11.32; absolute improvement 4.55%) based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scale from 0 to 100 after 12 to 26 weeks' treatment. We also found no statistically significant difference in quality of life on a scale from 0 to 100 (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.54; absolute improvement 0.09%) after four to six weeks' treatment, based on the SF-36. No data were available for analysis of radiographic changes. Safety was evaluated in four trials including up to 288 participants: there was no difference in the experience of any adverse event after 4 to 12 weeks of treatment compared with placebo (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92). There was no difference in participants who withdrew because of adverse events (measured in one trial) after four weeks of treatment (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.92). No participants experienced any serious adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence suggests that electromagnetic field treatment may provide moderate benefit for osteoarthritis sufferers in terms of pain relief. Further studies are required to confirm whether this treatment confers clinically important benefits in terms of physical function and quality of life. Our conclusions are unchanged from the previous review conducted in 2002.\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": ""
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4241 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPhacoemulsification cataract surgery is usually performed in adults under local anaesthesia. Topical anaesthesia, which involves instilling anaesthetic drops to the ocular surface prior to and during surgery, has found large acceptance internationally. It is safe and allows for rapid patient turnover and visual recovery. Some surgeons have supplemented topical anaesthesia with intracameral lidocaine, reasoning that this may further reduce intraoperative pain, particularly during surgical stages involving manipulation of intraocular structures and rapid changes in fluid dynamics. This review, originally published in 2006 and updated in 2020, explores the efficacy and safety of using supplementary intracameral lidocaine in phacoemulsification cataract surgery.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether supplementing topical anaesthesia with intracameral lidocaine for phacoemulsification cataract surgery in adults reduces intraoperative and postoperative pain, and to assess differences in participant satisfaction, need for additional intraoperative anaesthesia, surgeon satisfaction, measures of intraocular toxicity, and adverse effects attributable to choice of anaesthesia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS BIREME iAH, and six trial registries on 4 February 2020. We also searched the reference lists of identified studies. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where participants underwent phacoemulsification for age-related cataract under topical anaesthesia with or without intracameral lidocaine either in two eyes of the same participant, or in different participants. We also included studies that used oral or intravenous sedation in addition to local anaesthesia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial methodological quality using standard Cochrane procedures.\nMain results\nWe identified five new RCTs in this updated review. We included a total of 13 trials in the review, conducted in the UK, the USA, Australia, Italy, Canada, Taiwan, Singapore, India, and Pakistan, and comprising 2388 eyes of 2355 participants (one study was a paired-eye study with each participant acting as their own control). The age range of participants was 34 to 95 years. We excluded studies that only included low-risk participants and excluded more difficult operative cases, for example hard lens nuclei or small pupils. We excluded studies assessing only participants with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy.\nWe judged one study as at high risk for selection bias. We assessed five studies as having an unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and seven studies an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment. We judged three studies as at high risk of performance bias, as the surgeon was not blinded, and two studies as at unclear risk of bias for this domain. No studies were judged as at high risk for detection bias, but five studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias for this domain. We judged all 13 included studies to have a low risk of attrition bias and an unclear risk of reporting bias.\nData from eight RCTs favoured topical anaesthesia plus intracameral lidocaine 0.5% to 1% over topical anaesthesia alone for reducing intraoperative pain when measured using a 10-point visual analogue scale, analysed as a continuous outcome. Mean pain score was 0.26 lower in the supplemental intracameral lidocaine group (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.39 to −0.13, 1692 eyes, moderate-quality evidence). Data from seven RCTs favoured supplemental intracameral lidocaine for reducing intraoperative pain when measured as a dichotomous outcome. The odds ratio of experiencing any pain was 0.40 versus the topical anaesthesia-only group (95% CI 0.29 to 0.57, 1268 eyes, moderate-quality evidence). Data from four RCTs did not show any additional benefit on postoperative pain when measured using a 10-point visual analogue scale (mean difference 0.12 points, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.05, 751 eyes, moderate-quality evidence).\nThe impact on participant satisfaction was uncertain as only one small study investigated this outcome. The study suggested no difference between groups (mean difference 0.1 points, 95% CI −0.47 to 0.27, 60 eyes, low-quality evidence).\nData from seven RCTs did not demonstrate a difference between groups in the need for additional intraoperative anaesthesia (odds ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.39, 1194 eyes of 1161 participants; low-quality evidence), although this result is uncertain.\nA variety of measures were reported relating to possible intraocular toxicity. Data from four RCTs did not demonstrate a difference between groups in mean percentage corneal endothelial cell count change from pre- to postoperatively (mean difference 0.89%, 95% CI −1.12% to 2.9%, 254 eyes of 221 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nSynthesis of the evidence from eight RCTs identified no difference in intraoperative adverse events between groups (odds ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.16, 1726 eyes, low-quality evidence). This result should be interpreted with caution, mainly due to a lack of clear definitions of adverse events, low numbers of events, heterogeneity between studies, and large confidence intervals. Large observational studies may have been more appropriate for looking at this outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that supplementation of topical anaesthesia with intracameral lidocaine 0.5% to 1% for phacoemulsification cataract surgery in adults reduces participant perception of intraoperative pain. The odds of experiencing any pain (as opposed to no pain) were 60% less for the topical anaesthesia plus intracameral lidocaine group versus the topical anaesthesia-only group. However, the numerical amplitude of the effect may not be of great clinical significance on the continuous pain score scale. Generally, the pain scores were consistently low for both techniques. We found moderate-quality evidence that there is no additional benefit of intracameral lidocaine on postoperative pain. There is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on participant satisfaction and need for additional intraoperative anaesthesia due to low-quality evidence. There is moderate-quality evidence that intracameral lidocaine supplementation does not increase measures of intraocular toxicity, specifically loss of corneal endothelial cells. There is low-quality evidence that the incidence of intraoperative adverse events is unchanged with intracameral lidocaine supplementation, but as RCTs are not the optimum medium for looking at this, this result should be interpreted with caution.\nFurther research specifically investigating the adverse effects of intracameral anaesthesia might help to better determine its safety profile. Economic evaluations would also be useful for detailing cost implications.\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 included evidence published up to 4 February 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4242 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and aphasia among survivors is common. Current speech and language therapy (SLT) strategies have only limited effectiveness in improving aphasia. A possible adjunct to SLT for improving SLT outcomes might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability and hence to improve aphasia.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of tDCS for improving aphasia in people who have had a stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 2018), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library, June 2018), MEDLINE (1948 to June 2018), Embase (1980 to June 2018), CINAHL (1982 to June 2018), AMED (1985 to June 2018), Science Citation Index (1899 to June 2018), and seven additional databases. We also searched trial registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised controlled cross-over trials (from which we only analysed the first period as a parallel group design) comparing tDCS versus control in adults with aphasia due to stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. If necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trials.\nMain results\nWe included 21 trials involving 421 participants in the qualitative synthesis. Three studies with 112 participants used formal outcome measures for our primary outcome measure of functional communication — that is, measuring aphasia in a real-life communicative setting. There was no evidence of an effect (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.20 to 0.55; P = 0.37; I² = 0%; low quality of evidence; inverse variance method with random-effects model; higher SMD reflecting benefit from tDCS; moderate quality of evidence). At follow-up, there also was no evidence of an effect (SMD 0.14, 95% CI −0.31 to 0.58; P = 0.55; 80 participants ; 2 studies; I² = 0%; very low quality of evidence; higher SMD reflecting benefit from tDCS; moderate quality of evidence).\nFor our secondary outcome measure, accuracy in naming nouns at the end of intervention, there was evidence of an effect (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.66; P = 0.0005; I² = 0%; 298 participants; 11 studies; inverse variance method with random-effects model; higher SMD reflecting benefit from tDCS; moderate quality of evidence). There was an effect for the accuracy in naming nouns at follow-up (SMD 0.87, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.48; P = 0.006; 80 participants; 2 studies; I² = 32%; low quality of evidence); however the results were not statistically significant in our sensitivity analysis regarding the assumptions of the underlying correlation coefficient for imputing missing standard deviations of change scores. There was no evidence of an effect regarding accuracy in naming verbs post intervention (SMD 0.19, 95% CI −0.68 to 1.06; P = 0.67; I² = 0%; 21 participants; 3 studies; very low quality of evidence). We found no studies examining the effect of tDCS on cognition in people with aphasia after stroke. We did not find reported serious adverse events and the proportion of dropouts and adverse events was comparable between groups (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.37; P = 0.19; I² = 0%; Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects model; 345 participants; 15 studies; low quality of evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently there is no evidence of the effectiveness of tDCS (anodal tDCS, cathodal tDCS and Dual-tDCS) versus control (sham tDCS) for improving functional communication in people with aphasia after stroke (low quality of evidence). However, there is limited evidence that tDCS may improve naming performance in naming nouns (moderate quality of evidence), but not verbs (very low quality of evidence) at the end of the intervention period and possibly also at follow-up. Further methodologically rigorous RCTs with adequate sample size calculation are needed in this area to determine the effectiveness of this intervention. Data on functional communication and on adverse events should routinely be collected and presented in further publications as well as data at follow-up. Further study on the relationship between language/aphasia and cognition may be required, and improved cognitive assessments for patients with aphasia developed, prior to the use of tDCS to directly target cognition in aphasia. Authors should state total values at post-intervention as well as their corresponding change scores with standard deviations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To assess the effects of tDCS for improving language difficulties in people who have had a stroke."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4243 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPremenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a psychological and somatic disorder of unknown aetiology, with symptoms typically including irritability, depression, mood swings, bloating, breast tenderness and sleep disturbances. About 3% to 10% of women who experience these symptoms may also meet criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). PMS symptoms recur during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle and reduce by the end of menstruation. PMS results from ovulation and may be due to ovarian steroid interactions relating to neurotransmitter dysfunction. Premenstrual disorders have a devastating effect on women, their families and their work.\nSeveral treatment options have been suggested for PMS, including pharmacological and surgical interventions. The treatments thought to be most effective tend to fall into one of two categories: suppressing ovulation or correcting a speculated neuroendocrine anomaly.\nTransdermal oestradiol by patch, gel or implant effectively stops ovulation and the cyclical hormonal changes which produce the cyclical symptoms. These preparations are normally used for hormone therapy and contain lower doses of oestrogen than found in oral contraceptive pills. A shortened seven-day course of a progestogen is required each month for endometrial protection but can reproduce premenstrual syndrome-type symptoms in these women.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of non-contraceptive oestrogen-containing preparations in the management of PMS.\nSearch methods\nOn 14 March 2016, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO); MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; ClinicalTrials.gov; metaRegister of Controlled trials (mRCT); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles retrieved.\nSelection criteria\nWe included published and unpublished randomized placebo or active controlled trials on the efficacy of the use of non-contraceptive oestrogen-containing preparations in the management of premenstrual syndrome in women of reproductive age with PMS diagnosed by at least two prospective cycles without current psychiatric disorder.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data on premenstrual symptoms and adverse effects and entered data into Review Manager 5 software. Where possible, intention-to-treat or modified intention-to-treat analysis was used. Studies were pooled using a fixed-effect model, analysing cross-over trials as parallel trials. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for premenstrual symptom scores. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE working group methods.\nMain results\nThe search resulted in 524 potentially relevant articles. Five eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified (305 women). Trials using oral tablets, transdermal patches and implants were identified. No trial used gels.\nOne small cross-over trial (11 women, effective sample size 22 women considering cross-over trials) compared oral luteal-phase oestrogen versus placebo. Data were very low quality and unsuitable for analysis, but study authors reported that the intervention was ineffective and might aggravate the symptoms of PMS. They also reported that there were no adverse events.\nThree studies compared continuous oestrogen with progestogen versus placebo (with or without progestogen). These trials were of reasonable quality, although with a high risk of attrition bias and an unclear risk of bias due to potential carry-over effects in two cross-over trials. Continuous oestrogen had a small to moderate positive effect on global symptom scores (SMD −0.34, 95% CI −0.59 to −0.10, P = 0.005, 3 RCTs, 158 women, effective sample size 267 women, I² = 63%, very low quality evidence). The evidence was too imprecise to determine if the groups differed in withdrawal rates due to adverse effects (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.58, P = 0.33, 3 RCTs, 196 women, effective sample size 284 women, I² = 0%, very low quality evidence). Similarly, the evidence was very imprecise in measures of specific adverse events, with large uncertainties around the true value of the relative risk. None of the studies reported on long-term risks such as endometrial cancer or breast cancer.\nOne study compared patch dosage (100 vs 200 µg oestrogen, with progestogen in both arms) and had a high risk of performance bias, detection bias and attrition bias. The study did not find evidence that dosage affects global symptoms but there was much uncertainty around the effect estimate (SMD −1.55, 95% CI −8.88 to 5.78, P = 0.68, 1 RCT, 98 women, very low quality evidence). The evidence on rates of withdrawal for adverse events was too imprecise to draw any conclusions (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46, P = 0.34, 1 RCT, 107 women, low-quality evidence). However, it appeared that the 100 µg dose might be associated with a lower overall risk of adverse events attributed to oestrogen (RR 0.51, 95% Cl 0.26 to 0.99, P = 0.05, 1 RCT, 107 women, very low quality evidence) with a large uncertainty around the effect estimate.\nThe overall quality of the evidence for all comparisons was very low, mainly due to risk of bias (specifically attrition), imprecision, and statistical and clinical heterogeneity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low quality evidence to support the effectiveness of continuous oestrogen (transdermal patches or subcutaneous implants) plus progestogen, with a small to moderate effect size. We found very low quality evidence from a study based on 11 women to suggest that luteal-phase oral unopposed oestrogen is probably ineffective and possibly detrimental for controlling the symptoms of PMS. A comparison between 200 µg and 100 µg doses of continuous oestrogen was inconclusive with regard to effectiveness, but suggested that the lower dose was less likely to cause side effects. Uncertainty remains regarding safety, as the identified studies were too small to provide definite answers. Moreover, no included trial addressed adverse effects that might occur beyond the typical trial duration of 2-8 months. This suggests the choice of oestrogen dose and mode of administration could be based on an individual woman’s preference and modified according to the effectiveness and tolerability of the chosen regimen.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found very low quality evidence to suggest that oral unopposed oestrogen given in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle is probably ineffective for controlling the symptoms of PMS and may even make them worse. There was very low quality evidence to support the effectiveness of continuous oestrogen (in the form of transdermal patches or subcutaneous implants) plus progestogen, with a small to moderate effect size. A comparison between 200 microgram and 100 microgram doses of continuous oestrogen was inconclusive with regard to effectiveness but suggested that the lower dose was less likely to cause side effects. Uncertainty remains regarding safety, as the identified studies were too small to provide definite answers. Moreover, none of the included trials addressed adverse effects that might occur beyond the typical trial duration of 2 to 8 months. This suggests the choice of oestrogen dose and mode of administration could be based on an individual woman’s preference and modified according to the effectiveness and tolerability of the chosen regimen."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4244 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2007 and previously updated in 2011.\nUnilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction (UPVD) can occur as a result of disease, trauma or postoperatively. The dysfunction is characterised by complaints of dizziness, visual or gaze disturbances and balance impairment. Current management includes medication, physical manoeuvres and exercise regimes, the latter known collectively as vestibular rehabilitation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation in the adult, community-dwelling population of people with symptomatic unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The most recent search was 18 January 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of adults living in the community, diagnosed with symptomatic unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction. We sought comparisons of vestibular rehabilitation versus control (e.g. placebo), other treatment (non-vestibular rehabilitation, e.g. pharmacological) or another form of vestibular rehabilitation. Our primary outcome measure was change in the specified symptomatology (for example, proportion with dizziness resolved, frequency or severity of dizziness). Secondary outcomes were measures of function, quality of life and/or measure(s) of physiological status, where reproducibility has been confirmed and shown to be relevant or related to health status (for example, posturography), and adverse effects\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included 39 studies involving 2441 participants with unilateral peripheral vestibular disorders in the review. Trials addressed the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation against control/sham interventions, medical interventions or other forms of vestibular rehabilitation. Non-blinding of outcome assessors and selective reporting were threats that may have biased the results in 25% of studies, but otherwise there was a low risk of selection or attrition bias.\nIndividual and pooled analyses of the primary outcome, frequency of dizziness, showed a statistically significant effect in favour of vestibular rehabilitation over control or no intervention (odds ratio (OR) 2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85 to 3.86; four studies, 565 participants). Secondary outcomes measures related to levels of activity or participation measured, for example, with the Dizziness Handicap Inventory, which also showed a strong trend towards significant differences between the groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.83, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.64). The exception to this was when movement-based vestibular rehabilitation was compared to physical manoeuvres for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), where the latter was shown to be superior in cure rate in the short term (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49). There were no reported adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate to strong evidence that vestibular rehabilitation is a safe, effective management for unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction, based on a number of high-quality randomised controlled trials. There is moderate evidence that vestibular rehabilitation resolves symptoms and improves functioning in the medium term. However, there is evidence that for the specific diagnostic group of BPPV, physical (repositioning) manoeuvres are more effective in the short term than exercise-based vestibular rehabilitation; although a combination of the two is effective for longer-term functional recovery. There is insufficient evidence to discriminate between differing forms of vestibular rehabilitation.\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 39 randomised controlled trials (involving 2441 participants) that investigated the use of vestibular rehabilitation in this group of disorders. All studies used a form of vestibular rehabilitation and involved adults who lived in the community with symptomatic, confirmed UPVD. The studies were varied in that they compared vestibular rehabilitation with other forms of management (for example, medication, usual care or passive manoeuvres), with control or placebo interventions or with other forms of vestibular rehabilitation. Another source of variation between studies was the use of different outcome measures (for example, reports of dizziness, improvements in balance, vision or walking, or ability to participate in daily life)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 4245 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAntipsychotic agents are often used to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in people with dementia although there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of their long-term use for this indication and concern that they may cause harm, including higher mortality. When behavioural strategies have failed and treatment with antipsychotic drugs is instituted, regular attempts to withdraw them have been recommended in guidelines. Physicians, nurses and families of older people with dementia may be reluctant to stop antipsychotics, fearing deterioration of NPS.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate whether withdrawal of antipsychotic agents is successful in older people with dementia and NPS in primary care or nursing home settings, to list the different strategies for withdrawal of antipsychotic agents in older participants with dementia and NPS, and to measure the effects of withdrawal of antipsychotic agents on participants' behaviour and assess safety.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (ALOIS), the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, clinical trials registries and grey literature sources up to 11 January 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised, controlled trials comparing an antipsychotic withdrawal strategy to continuation of antipsychotics in people with dementia who had been treated with an antipsychotic drug for at least three months.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies involving 632 participants. One new trial (19 participants) was added for this update.\nOne trial was conducted in a community setting, eight in nursing homes and one in both settings. Different types of antipsychotics at varying doses were discontinued in the studies. Both abrupt and gradual withdrawal schedules were used. Reported data were predominantly from studies at low or unclear risk of bias.\nWe included nine trials with 575 randomised participants that used a proxy outcome for overall success of antipsychotic withdrawal. Pooling data was not possible due to heterogeneity of outcome measures used. Based on assessment of seven studies, discontinuation may make little or no difference to whether or not participants complete the study (low-quality evidence).\nTwo trials included only participants with psychosis, agitation or aggression who had responded to antipsychotic treatment. In these two trials, stopping antipsychotics was associated with a higher risk of leaving the study early due to symptomatic relapse or a shorter time to symptomatic relapse.\nWe found low-quality evidence that discontinuation may make little or no difference to overall NPS, measured using various scales (7 trials, 519 participants). There was some evidence from subgroup analyses in two trials that discontinuation may reduce agitation for participants with less severe NPS at baseline, but may be associated with a worsening of NPS in participants with more severe NPS at baseline.\nNone of the studies assessed withdrawal symptoms. Adverse effects of antipsychotics (such as falls) were not systematically assessed. Low-quality evidence showed that discontinuation may have little or no effect on adverse events (5 trials, 381 participants), quality of life (2 trials, 119 participants), or cognitive function (5 trials, 365 participants).\nThere were insufficient data to determine whether discontinuation of antipsychotics has any effect on mortality (very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-quality evidence that antipsychotics may be successfully discontinued in older people with dementia and NPS who have been taking antipsychotics for at least three months, and that discontinuation may have little or no important effect on behavioural and psychological symptoms. This is consistent with the observation that most behavioural complications of dementia are intermittent and often do not persist for longer than three months. Discontinuation may have little or no effect on overall cognitive function. Discontinuation may make no difference to adverse events and quality of life. Based on the trials in this review, we are uncertain whether discontinuation of antipsychotics leads to a decrease in mortality.\nPeople with psychosis, aggression or agitation who responded well to long-term antipsychotic drug use, or those with more severe NPS at baseline, may benefit behaviourally from continuation of antipsychotics. Discontinuation may reduce agitation for people with mild NPS at baseline. However, these conclusions are based on few studies or small subgroups and further evidence of benefits and harms associated with withdrawal of antipsychotic is required in people with dementia and mild and severe NPS.\nThe overall conclusions of the review have not changed since 2013 and the number of available trials remains low.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 10 studies with a total of 632 participants in our review. We added one new study with 19 participants for this update. Most participants lived in nursing homes. The studies varied considerably with regard to the people they included, the methods they used and the outcomes they measured.\nBecause the studies were so diverse, it was not possible to combine all the data numerically. We found low-quality evidence that older people with dementia may be able to stop long-term antipsychotics without their behavioural problems getting worse. However, in some people who had psychosis, agitation or aggression and who had improved significantly when they first started antipsychotic treatment, we found that stopping the drugs may increase the risk of the behavioural problems getting worse again. On the other hand, agitation decreased after stopping the drugs in some participants whose NPS at the beginning of the studies was relatively mild.\nWe did not find enough evidence to know whether stopping antipsychotics has beneficial effects on quality of life, thinking and remembering, or the ability to carry out daily tasks, nor if the risk of harmful events - such as falls - is reduced. We are uncertain whether stopping antipsychotics leads to people living longer."
}
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.