dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum | 5152 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUltrasound and liver function tests (serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase) are used as screening tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.\nObjectives\nTo determine and compare the accuracy of ultrasound versus liver function tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ultrasound, serum bilirubin, or serum alkaline phosphatase. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test result, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test result as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently collected data from each study. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used the bivariate model to summarise sensitivity and specificity.\nMain results\nFive studies including 523 participants reported the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound. One studies (262 participants) compared the accuracy of ultrasound, serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase in the same participants. All the studies included people with symptoms. One study included only participants without previous cholecystectomy but this information was not available from the remaining studies. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. The sensitivities for ultrasound ranged from 0.32 to 1.00, and the specificities ranged from 0.77 to 0.97. The summary sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.95). At the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.408, the post-test probability (95% CI) associated with positive ultrasound tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91), and negative ultrasound tests was 0.17 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.33).\nThe single study of liver function tests reported diagnostic accuracy at two cut-offs for bilirubin (greater than 22.23 μmol/L and greater than twice the normal limit) and two cut-offs for alkaline phosphatase (greater than 125 IU/L and greater than twice the normal limit). This study also assessed ultrasound and reported higher sensitivities for bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase at both cut-offs but the specificities of the markers were higher at only the greater than twice the normal limit cut-off. The sensitivity for ultrasound was 0.32 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.54), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.84 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.95), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99). The specificity for ultrasound was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). No study reported the diagnostic accuracy of a combination of bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase, or combinations with ultrasound.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMany people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ultrasound or liver function test. Such people may have to be re-tested with other modalities if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms. False-positive results are also possible and further non-invasive testing is recommended to confirm common bile duct stones to avoid the risks of invasive testing.\nIt should be noted that these results were based on few studies of poor methodological quality and the results for ultrasound varied considerably between studies. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.\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": "All the studies were of low methodological quality, which may undermine the validity of our findings."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5153 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInduction of labour is the artificial initiation of labour in a pregnant woman after the age of fetal viability but without any objective evidence of active phase labour and with intact fetal membranes. The need for induction of labour may arise due to a problem in the mother, her fetus or both, and the procedure may be carried out at or before term. Obstetricians have long known that for this to be successful, it is important that the uterine cervix (the neck of the womb) has favourable characteristics in terms of readiness to go into the labour state.\nObjectives\nTo compare Bishop score with any other method for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening in women admitted for induction of labour.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nAll RCTs comparing Bishop score with any other methods of pre-induction cervical assessment in women admitted for induction of labour. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs and studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion. Studies published in abstract form were eligible for inclusion if they provided sufficient information.\nComparisons could include the following.\n1. Bishop score versus transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS).\n2. Bishop score versus Insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1).\n3. Bishop score versus vaginal fetal fibronectin (fFN).\nHowever, we only identified data for a comparison of Bishop score versus TVUS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Data were checked for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included two trials that recruited a total of 234 women. The overall risk of bias was low for the two studies. Both studies compared Bishop score withTVUS.\nThe two included studies did not show any clear difference between the Bishop score and TVUS groups for the following main outcomes: vaginal birth (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25, moderate quality evidence), caesarean delivery (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.34, moderate quality evidence), neonatal admission into neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.71, moderate quality evidence). Both studies only provided median data in relation to induction-delivery interval and reported no clear difference between the Bishop and TVUS groups. Perinatal mortality was not reported in the included studies.\nFor the review's secondary outcomes, the need for misoprostol for cervical ripening was more frequent in the TVUS group compared to the Bishop score group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.66, two studies, 234 women, moderate quality evidence). In contrast, there were no clear differences between the Bishop scope and TVUS groups in terms of meconium staining of the amniotic fluid, fetal heart rate abnormality in labour, and Apgar score less than seven. Only one trial reported median data on the induction-delivery interval and induction to active phase interval, the trialist reported no difference between the Bishop group and the TVUS group for this outcome. Neither of the included studies reported on uterine rupture.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate quality evidence from two small RCTs involving 234 women that compared two different methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening (Bishop score and TVUS) did not demonstrate superiority of one method over the other in terms of the main outcomes assessed in this review. We did not identify any data relating to perinatal mortality. Whilst use of TVUS was associated with an increased need for misoprostol for cervical ripening, both methods could be complementary.\nThe choice of a particular method of assessing pre-induction cervical ripening may differ depending on the environment and need where one is practicing since some methods (i.e. TVUS) may not be readily available and affordable in resource-poor settings where the sequelae of labour and its management is prevalent.\nThe evidence in this review is based on two studies that enrolled a small number of women and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of TVUS over the standard digital vaginal assessment in pre-induction cervical ripening. Further adequately powered RCTs involving TVUS and the Bishop score and including other methods of pre-induction cervical ripening assessment are warranted. Such studies need to address uterine rupture, perinatal mortality, optimal cut-off value of the cervical length and Bishop score to classify women as having favourable or unfavourable cervices and cost should be included as an outcome.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What the research says\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Moderate quality evidence was available from the two included studies which compared the Bishop score with transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) (ultrasound done through the vagina). The studies were considered to be at a low risk of bias. The need for misoprostol (a drug) for softening the cervix (cervical ripening) was more common in the TVUS arm. No clear difference was seen between the two methods in terms of vaginal birth, caesarean delivery, admission of the newborn into the neonatal intensive care unit, meconium staining of the amniotic fluid, abnormal heart beat of the baby within the womb whilst the mother was in labour and Apgar score less than seven (difficulty of the baby establishing life and other life movements on its own immediately after childbirth). None of the included studies reported on tears of the womb or death of the baby just before, during or immediately after childbirth. We did not find any studies that compared Bishop score with any other methods such as the presence of vaginal fetal fibronectin or insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5154 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).\nMain results\nWe included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.\nWe found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.\nPooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.\nWe found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.\nWe found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.\nWe found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.\nFuture trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:\n· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and\n· how many people had unwanted effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5155 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe presence of deleterious mutations in breast cancer 1 gene (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2 gene (BRCA2) significantly increases the risk of developing some cancers, such as breast and high-grade serous cancer (HGSC) of ovarian, tubal and peritoneal origin. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is usually recommended to BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers after completion of childbearing. Despite prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the role of RRSO in reducing the mortality and incidence of breast, HGSC and other cancers, RRSO is still an area of debate and it is unclear whether RRSO differs in effectiveness by type of mutation carried.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of RRSO in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 7) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and trial registries, with no language restrictions up to July 2017. We handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications.\nSelection criteria\nWe included non-randomised trials (NRS), prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series that used statistical adjustment for baseline case mix using multivariable analyses comparing RRSO versus no RRSO in women without a previous or coexisting breast, ovarian or fallopian tube malignancy, in women with or without hysterectomy, and in women with a risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) before, with or after RRSO.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). To assess bias in the studies, we used the ROBINS-I 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We quantified inconsistency between studies by estimating the I2 statistic. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled effect estimates.\nMain results\nWe included 10 cohort studies, comprising 8087 participants (2936 (36%) surgical participants and 5151 (64%) control participants who were BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. All the studies compared RRSO with or without RRM versus no RRSO (surveillance). The certainty of evidence by GRADE assessment was very low due to serious risk of bias. Nine studies, including 7927 women, were included in the meta-analyses. The median follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 27.4 years.\nMain outcomes: overall survival was longer with RRSO compared with no RRSO (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.54; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2548 women; very low-certainty evidence). HGSC cancer mortality (HR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17; I² = 69%; P < 0.0001; 3 studies, 2534 women; very low-certainty evidence) and breast cancer mortality (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.88; I² = 65%; P = 0.009; 7 studies, 7198 women; very low-certainty evidence) were lower with RRSO compared with no RRSO. None of the studies reported bone fracture incidence. There was a difference in favour of RRSO compared with no RRSO in terms of ovarian cancer risk perception quality of life (MD 15.40, 95% CI 8.76 to 22.04; P < 0.00001; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported adverse events.\nSubgroup analyses for main outcomes: meta-analysis showed an increase in overall survival among women who had RRSO versus women without RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52; P < 0001; I² = 23%; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.01; I² = 0%; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analysis showed a decrease in HGSC cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41; I² = 54%; P = 0.001; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but uncertain for BRCA2 mutation carriers due to low frequency of HGSC cancer deaths in BRCA2 mutation carriers. There was a decrease in breast cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but not for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study showed a difference in favour of RRSO versus no RRSO in improving quality of life for ovarian cancer risk perception in women who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (MD 10.70, 95% CI 2.45 to 18.95; P = 0.01; 98 women; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (MD 13.00, 95% CI 3.59 to 22.41; P = 0.007; very low-certainty evidence). Data from one study showed a difference in favour of RRSO and RRM versus no RRSO in increasing overall survival (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; P = 0.0001; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), but no difference for breast cancer mortality (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.19; P = 0.25; very low-certainty evidence). The risk estimates for breast cancer mortality according to age at RRSO (50 years of age or less versus more than 50 years) was not protective and did not differ for BRCA1 (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.11; I² = 16%; P = 0.23; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-certainty evidence that RRSO may increase overall survival and lower HGSC and breast cancer mortality for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that RRSO reduces the risk of death from HGSC and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 mutations. Evidence for the effect of RRSO on HGSC and breast cancer in BRCA2 carriers was very uncertain due to low numbers. These results should be interpreted with caution due to questionable study designs, risk of bias profiles, and very low-certainty evidence. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding bone fracture incidence, quality of life, or severe adverse events for RRSO, or for effects of RRSO based on type and age at risk-reducing surgery. Further research on these outcomes is warranted to explore differential effects for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.\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": "Mutations in the breast cancer 1 gene (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2 gene (BRCA2) increase the risk of developing some cancers including breast, ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) (removal of both fallopian tubes and ovaries) is usually offered to women with BRCA1, BRCA2 or both mutations after they have finished their childbearing. However, how much of a reduction in risk of breast and high-grade serous cancer (HGSC) of fallopian tube, ovarian and primary peritoneal origin RRSO offers, and the effect on other health outcomes, are still uncertain and it is unclear whether RRSO differs in effectiveness by type of mutation."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5156 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common and progressive disease characterised by chronic cough, airflow limitation and recurrent exacerbations. Since COPD exacerbations are linked to rising mortality and reduced quality of life, the condition poses a substantial burden on individuals, society and the healthcare system. Effective management of COPD exacerbations that includes treatment of related conditions in people with COPD is thus recognised as a relevant clinical question and an important research topic. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a known comorbidity of COPD, and pulmonary microaspiration of gastric acid is thought to be a possible cause of COPD exacerbations. Therefore, reducing gastric acid secretion may lead to a reduction in COPD exacerbations. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most commonly prescribed medications and are recommended as first-line therapy for people with GERD because of their inhibitory effects on gastric acid secretion. Treatment with PPIs may present a viable treatment option for people with COPD.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPI administration for people with COPD, focusing on COPD-specific outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials and conventional clinical trial registers from inception to 22 May 2020. We also screened bibliographies of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nParallel-group and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral PPIs versus placebo, usual care or low-dose PPIs in adults with COPD were eligible for inclusion. We excluded cross-over RCTs, as well as studies with a duration of less than two months.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent review authors screened search results, selected studies for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodology. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author. Primary outcomes of interest were COPD exacerbations, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, lung function test indices, acute respiratory infections and disease-specific adverse events. We extracted data on these outcome measures and entered into them into Review Manager software for analysis.\nMain results\nThe search identified 99 records, and we included one multicentre RCT that randomised 103 adults with COPD. The 12-month RCT compared an oral PPI (lansoprazole) and usual care versus usual care alone. It was conducted at one tertiary care hospital and three secondary care hospitals in Japan. This study recruited participants with a mean age of 75 years, and excluded people with symptoms or history of GERD. No placebo was used in the usual care arm.\nAmong the primary and secondary outcomes of this review, the study only reported data on COPD exacerbations and acute respiratory infections (the common cold). As we only included one study, we could not conduct a meta-analysis.\nThe included study reported that 12 of the 50 people on lansoprazole had at least one exacerbation over a year, compared to 26 out of 50 on usual care (risk ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81). The frequency of COPD exacerbations per person in a year was also lower in the PPI plus usual care group than in the usual care alone group（0.34 ± 0.72 vs 1.18 ± 1.40; P < 0.001). The number of people with at least one cold over the year was similar in both groups: 26 people on lansoprazole and 27 people in the usual care group. We judged the evidence to be of low to very low certainty, according to GRADE criteria.\nThe study reported no data on pneumonia and other serious adverse events, quality of life, lung function test indices or disease-specific adverse events. The risk of bias was largely low or unclear for the majority of domains, though the performance bias was a high risk, as the study was not blinded.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence identified by this review is insufficient to determine whether treatment with PPIs is a potential option for COPD. The sample size of the included trial is small, and the evidence is low to very low-certainty. The efficacy and safety profile of PPIs for people with COPD remains uncertain. Future large-scale, high-quality studies are warranted, which investigate major clinical outcomes such as COPD exacerbation rate, serious adverse events and quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This study specifically looked at COPD. COPD is a common respiratory disease, characterised by cough with mucus and breathlessness. COPD is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and reduces quality of life. COPD exacerbation is associated with hospitalisation and death, placing a large burden on both society and the economy. COPD exacerbation is caused by different conditions that require different therapies.\nGastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one cause of COPD exacerbation. GERD is a common gastrointestinal disease caused by reflux of stomach acid into the oesophagus (food pipe) and lungs. This gives people the symptoms of heartburn and cough. When people have GERD, they are given PPIs to treat it. These work by reducing the amount of stomach acid. While PPIs are effective for treating symptoms of GERD, it is unclear whether adding PPIs to usual care reduces the frequency of COPD exacerbations or improves the quality of life for people with COPD."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5157 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite efforts to preserve the neurovascular bundles with nerve-sparing surgery, erectile dysfunction remains common following radical prostatectomy. Postoperative penile rehabilitation seeks to restore erectile function but results have been conflicting.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of penile rehabilitation strategies in restoring erectile function following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase), the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) and a grey literature repository (Grey Literature Report) from their inception through to 3 January 2018. We also searched the reference lists of other relevant publications and abstract proceedings. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised trials with a parallel or cross-over design.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and rated quality of evidence according to GRADE on a per-outcome basis. Primary outcomes were self-reported potency, erectile function measured by validated questionnaires (with potency defined as an International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) score of 19 or greater and or an IIEF-5 of score of 17 or greater) and serious adverse events. For all quality of life assessments on a continuous scale, higher values indicated better quality of life.\nMain results\nWe included eight randomised controlled trials with 1699 participants across three comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of this review only.\nScheduled phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5I) versus placebo or no treatment\nScheduled PDE5I may have little or no effect on short-term (up to 12 months) self-reported potency (risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to1.41; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 47 more men with self-reported potency per 1000 (95% CI 33 fewer to 149 more) and short-term erectile function as assessed by a validated instrument (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.55; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 28 more men per 1000 (95% CI 50 fewer to 138 more), but we are very uncertain of both of these findings. Scheduled PDE5I may result in fewer serious adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; low quality evidence), though this does not appear biologically plausible and may represent a chance finding. We are also very uncertain of this finding. We found no long-term (longer than 12 months) data for any of the three primary outcomes.\nScheduled PDE5I versus on-demand PDE5I\nDaily PDE5I appears to result in little to no difference in both short-term and long-term (greater than 12 months) self-reported potency (short term: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.53; long term: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; both very low quality evidence); this corresponds to nine fewer men with self-reported short-term potency per 1000 (95% CI 119 fewer to 166 more) and zero fewer men with self-reported long-term potency per 1000 (95% CI 153 fewer to 257 more). We are very uncertain of these findings. Daily PDE5I appears to result in little to no difference in short-term and long-term erectile function (short term: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.55; long term; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.14; both very-low quality evidence), which corresponds to zero men with short-term erectile dysfunction per 1000 (95% CI 80 fewer to 125 more) and 119 fewer men with long-term erectile dysfunction per 1000 (95% CI 239 fewer to 64 more). We are very uncertain of these findings. Scheduled PDE5I may result in little or no effects on short-term adverse events (RR 0.69 95% CI 0.12 to 4.04; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to seven fewer men with short-term serious adverse events (95% CI 18 fewer to 64 more), but we are very uncertain of these findings. We found no long-term data for serious adverse events.\nScheduled PDE5I versus scheduled intraurethral prostaglandin E1\nAt short-term follow-up, daily PDE5I may result in little or no effect on self-reported potency (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79, to 1.52; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 46 more men per 1000 (95% CI 97 fewer to 241 more). Daily PDE5I may result in a small improvement of erectile function (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.20; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 92 more men per 1000 (95% CI 23 fewer to 318 more) but we are very uncertain of both these findings. We found no long-term (longer than 12 months) data for any of the three primary outcomes.\nWe found no evidence for any other comparisons and were unable to perform any of the preplanned subgroup analyses based on nerve-sparing approach, age or baseline erectile function.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on mostly very-low and some low-quality evidence, penile rehabilitation strategies consisting of scheduled PDE5I use following radical prostatectomy may not promote self-reported potency and erectile function any more than on demand use.\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 the men who used these medicines on a scheduled basis may have had similar self-reported erections and quality of erections (based on questionnaires they filled out) as men who took no medication regularly or use it as needed. They also had similar rates of serious unwanted side effects and similar rates of stopping the drug before the end of the treatment duration. However, we are very uncertain of these findings. We were unable to research whether these results would be different in different groups of men based on whether the surgeon tried to preserve the nerves that help with erections or not, based on men's age and how good their erections were beforehand because we found no studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5158 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCataract is the leading cause of blindness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and the prevalence is inequitably distributed between and within countries. Interventions have been undertaken to improve cataract surgical services, however, the effectiveness of these interventions on promoting equity is not known.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects on equity of interventions to improve access to cataract services for populations with cataract blindness (and visual impairment) in LMICs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 12 April 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 12 April 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 12 April 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 12 April 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 12 April 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 12 April 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that reported on strategies to improve access to cataract services in LMICs using the following study designs: randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. Included studies were conducted in LMICs, and were targeted at disadvantaged populations, or disaggregated outcome data by 'PROGRESS-Plus' factors (Place of residence; Race/ethnicity/ culture/ language; Occupation; Gender/sex; Religion; Education; Socio-economic status; Social capital/networks. The 'Plus' component includes disability, sexual orientation and age).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors (JR and JP) independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed them for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible, so included studies were synthesised in table and text.\nMain results\nFrom a total of 2865 studies identified in the search, two met our eligibility criteria, both of which were cluster-RCTs conducted in rural China. The way in which the trials were conducted means that the risk of bias is unclear. In both studies, villages were randomised to be either an intervention or control group. Adults identified with vision-impairing cataract, following village-based vision and eye health assessment, either received an intervention to increase uptake of cataract surgery (if their village was an intervention group), or to receive 'standard care' (if their village was a control group).\nOne study (n = 434), randomly allocated 26 villages or townships to the intervention, which involved watching an informational video and receiving counselling about cataract and cataract surgery, while the control group were advised that they had decreased vision due to cataract and it could be treated, without being shown the video or receiving counselling. There was low-certainty evidence that providing information and counselling had no effect on uptake of referral to the hospital (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.67, 1 RCT, 434 participants) and little or no effect on the uptake of surgery (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 434 participants). We assessed the level of evidence to be of low-certainty for both outcomes, due to indirectness of evidence and imprecision of results.\nThe other study (n = 355, 24 towns randomised) included three intervention arms: free surgery; free surgery plus reimbursement of transport costs; and free surgery plus free transport to and from the hospital. These were compared to the control group, which was reminded to use the \"low-cost\" (˜USD 38) surgical service. There was low-certainty evidence that surgical fee waiver with/without transport provision or reimbursement increased uptake of surgery (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.31, 1 RCT, 355 participants). We assessed the level of evidence to be of low-certainty due to indirectness of evidence and imprecision of results.\nNeither of the studies reported our primary outcome of change in prevalence of cataract blindness, or other outcomes such as cataract surgical coverage, surgical outcome, or adverse effects. Neither study disaggregated outcomes by social subgroups to enable further assessment of equity effects. We sought data from both studies and obtained data from one; the information video and counselling intervention did not have a differential effect across the PROGRESS-Plus categories with available data (place of residence, gender, education level, socioeconomic status and social capital).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence on the effect on equity of interventions to improve access to cataract services in LMICs is limited. We identified only two studies, both conducted in rural China. Assessment of equity effects will be improved if future studies disaggregate outcomes by relevant social subgroups. To assist with assessing generalisability of findings to other settings, robust data on contextual factors are also needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "As people get older, the lens of the eye becomes cloudy leading to sight loss and blindness. The cloudy lens is known as a cataract. Doctors can remove the cataract and replace it with an artificial lens. This is usually successful surgery and restores sight.\nCataract surgery is distributed unfairly in the world. More people in LMICs have cataracts that cause sight loss and blindness because it is harder to get cataract surgery. When some people have less chance of good health care, such as cataract surgery, this is known as inequity. There is also inequity within LMICs as poorer people and women also have less chance of having cataract surgery.\nTo address this problem, Cochrane researchers wanted to find out if there are ways to improve the chances of getting cataract surgery in LMICs and so lower the burden of cataract. They also wanted to see if this makes it fairer (less inequity) and helps everyone to get an equal chance to have cataract surgery. They planned to consider many different aspects including acceptability, affordability and availability of cataract services."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5159 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGlaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness. Minimally invasive surgical techniques, such as ab interno trabecular bypass surgery, have been introduced to prevent glaucoma from progressing.\nObjectives\nIn light of the potential benefits for people with open-angle glaucoma and the widespread uptake of the technique, it is important to critically evaluate the evidence for whether treatment with ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with Trabectome is both efficacious and safe.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2020, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 17 July 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with Trabectome compared to other surgical treatments (other minimally invasive glaucoma device techniques, trabeculectomy), laser treatment, or medical treatment. We also included trials in which these devices were combined with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification in combination with other glaucoma surgery or alone.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was proportion of participants who were medication-free (not using eye drops). Secondary outcomes included mean change in intraocular pressure (IOP), proportion of participants who required further glaucoma surgery, mean change in quality of life, proportion of participants who achieved an IOP of 21 mmHg or less, 17 mmHg or less, or 14 mmHg or less and rate of visual field progression. Adverse effects were the proportion of participants experiencing intra- and postoperative complications. All outcomes were measured in the short term (6 to 18 months), medium term (18 to 36 months), and long term (36 months or longer).\nMain results\nIn this update, we included one RCT which had previously been identified as an ongoing study in our 2016 publication. This trial was a single-centre, single-surgeon RCT set in Canada with 19 participants. Participants were adults who had open-angle glaucoma, open angles, and had inadequately controlled IOP that required surgical intervention. The study was terminated before the intended sample size was reached 'due to slow recruitment and increasing lack of clinical equipoise over time'. This reduced the power of the study to detect clinically important effects. We assessed the trial as being at high risk of attrition, reporting, and other potential sources of biases. The risks of performance and detection bias are unclear.\nThe intervention group of 10 people had Trabectome ab interno trabeculotomy combined with cataract extraction (phaco-AIT) and the comparator group of 9 people had trabeculectomy with mitomycin C combined with cataract extraction (phaco-Trab), one of whom was lost to follow-up. Seven of 10 participants in the phaco-AIT group and 4 of 8 in the phaco-Trab group were medication-free (not using drops) at 12 months (odds ratio (OR) 2.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 16.2; very low-certainty evidence). At 12 months, the mean change in IOP was worse for phaco-AIT than for phaco-Trab, but this evidence was very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 3.70 mmHg, 95% CI -1.44 to 8.84; very low-certainty evidence) in the phaco-AIT group, as was the difference in the mean number of IOP-lowering drops taken per day (MD -0.41, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.40; very low-certainty evidence).\nOnly one participant in the phaco-AIT group required further glaucoma surgery. The study protocol declared that quality of life and visual field progression were measured, but they were not reported\nAll 8 participants with complete data in the phaco-Trab group and 8 of 10 in the phaco-AIT had at least one early or late postoperative complication (e.g. day 1 IOP spike, hypotony, choroidal effusion, bleb leak or encapsulation, uveitis, or peripheral anterior synechiae).\nThe evidence was very low-certainty due to high risk of bias for several domains for this study and for large imprecision of all estimates.\nWe also identified one ongoing study, identified from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP): a multicentre, open, RCT comparing Trabectome to ab interno trabeculectomy using microhook. The study investigators plan to recruit 120 adults between 20 and 90 years of age. The primary outcome is duration of treatment success. Secondary outcomes include postoperative IOP, number of anti-glaucoma medications, and adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no high-quality evidence for the outcomes of ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with Trabectome for open-angle glaucoma. Properly designed RCTs are needed to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of this technique.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How did we identify and evaluate the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "First, we searched for randomised controlled studies (clinical studies in which people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups), because these studies provide the most robust evidence about the effects of a treatment. We then compared the results and summarised the evidence from all the studies. Finally, we rated our confidence in the evidence-based on factors such as study methods and sizes and the consistency of findings across studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5160 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPoor interprofessional collaboration (IPC) can adversely affect the delivery of health services and patient care. Interventions that address IPC problems have the potential to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of practice-based interventions designed to improve interprofessional collaboration (IPC) amongst health and social care professionals, compared to usual care or to an alternative intervention, on at least one of the following primary outcomes: patient health outcomes, clinical process or efficiency outcomes or secondary outcomes (collaborative behaviour).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2015, issue 11), MEDLINE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to November 2015. We handsearched relevant interprofessional journals to November 2015, and reviewed the reference lists of the included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials of practice-based IPC interventions involving health and social care professionals compared to usual care or to an alternative intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of each potentially relevant study. We extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias of each study. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis of study outcomes, given the small number of included studies and their heterogeneity in clinical settings, interventions and outcomes. Consequently, we summarised the study data and presented the results in a narrative format to report study methods, outcomes, impact and certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies in total (6540 participants); six cluster-randomised trials and three individual randomised trials (1 study randomised clinicians, 1 randomised patients, and 1 randomised clinicians and patients). All studies were conducted in high-income countries (Australia, Belgium, Sweden, UK and USA) across primary, secondary, tertiary and community care settings and had a follow-up of up to 12 months. Eight studies compared an IPC intervention with usual care and evaluated the effects of different practice-based IPC interventions: externally facilitated interprofessional activities (e.g. team action planning; 4 studies), interprofessional rounds (2 studies), interprofessional meetings (1 study), and interprofessional checklists (1 study). One study compared one type of interprofessional meeting with another type of interprofessional meeting. We assessed four studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and an equal number of studies to be at high risk of detection bias.\nFor studies comparing an IPC intervention with usual care, functional status in stroke patients may be slightly improved by externally facilitated interprofessional activities (1 study, 464 participants, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether patient-assessed quality of care (1 study, 1185 participants), continuity of care (1 study, 464 participants) or collaborative working (4 studies, 1936 participants) are improved by externally facilitated interprofessional activities, as we graded the evidence as very low-certainty for these outcomes. Healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended practices may be slightly improved with externally facilitated interprofessional activities or interprofessional meetings (3 studies, 2576 participants, low certainty evidence). The use of healthcare resources may be slightly improved by externally facilitated interprofessional activities, interprofessional checklists and rounds (4 studies, 1679 participants, low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on patient mortality, morbidity or complication rates.\nCompared to multidisciplinary audio conferencing, multidisciplinary video conferencing may reduce the average length of treatment and may reduce the number of multidisciplinary conferences needed per patient and the patient length of stay. There was little or no difference between these interventions in the number of communications between health professionals (1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven that the certainty of evidence from the included studies was judged to be low to very low, there is not sufficient evidence to draw clear conclusions on the effects of IPC interventions. Neverthess, due to the difficulties health professionals encounter when collaborating in clinical practice, it is encouraging that research on the number of interventions to improve IPC has increased since this review was last updated. While this field is developing, further rigorous, mixed-method studies are required. Future studies should focus on longer acclimatisation periods before evaluating newly implemented IPC interventions, and use longer follow-up to generate a more informed understanding of the effects of IPC on clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What 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 find out whether strategies to improve interprofessional collaboration (the process by which different health and social care professional groups work together), can positively impact the delivery of care to patients. Cochrane researchers collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question, and found nine studies with 5540 participants."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5161 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect.\nObjectives\nPrimary objectives:\nTo assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events)..\nSecondary objectives:\nTo assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction.\nSearch methods\nFor this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity.\nMain results\nThis third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes.\nThere were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) −2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) −3.8 to −1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD −2.0 mm Hg (95% CI −2.7 to −1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by −2.0 to −4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by −1.3 to −1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.\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": "Some weight-loss medicines reduce weight and blood pressure in people with high blood pressure, but may cause unwanted effects. We did not find enough evidence about whether taking weight-loss medicines to lose weight could reduce death and cardiovascular disease."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5162 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn most Western countries, obstetricians and midwives induce labour in about 25% of pregnant women. Oxytocin is an effective drug for this purpose, but associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need for immediate delivery are the most common. Various administration regimens such as reduced or pulsatile dosing have been suggested to minimise these. Discontinuation in the active phase of labour, i.e. when contractions are well-established and the cervix is dilated at least 5 cm is another method which may reduce adverse effects.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether birth outcomes can be improved by discontinuation of intravenous (IV) oxytocin, initiated in the latent phase of induced labour, once active phase of labour is established.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2018), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (23 January 2018) together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing discontinued IV with continuous IV oxytocin in the active phase of induced labour.\nNo exclusion criteria were applied in terms of parity, maternal age, ethnicity, co-morbidity status, labour setting, gestational age, and prior caesarean delivery.\nStudies comparing different dosage regimens are outside the scope of this review.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods.\nMain results\nWe found 10 completed RCTs involving 1888 women. One additional trial is ongoing. The included trials were conducted in hospital settings between February 1998 and January 2016, two in Europe (Denmark, and Greece), two in Turkey, and one each in Israel, Iran, USA, Bangladesh, India, and Thailand. Most trials included full-term singleton pregnancies with a fetus in vertex presentation. Some excluded women with cervical priming prior to induction and some excluded women with a history of prior caesarean delivery. When reported, the average age of the women ranged from 22 to 31 years, nulliparity from 45% to 68%, and pre-pregnancy body mass index from 22 to 32.\nMany of the included trials had design limitations and were judged to be at either high or unclear risk of bias across a number of 'Risk of bias' domains.\nFour trials included a Consort flow diagram. In three, this gave details of participants delivered before the active phase of labour, and treatment compliance for those who reached that stage. One Consort diagram only provided the latter information. The data in many of the trials without such a flow diagram were implausibly compliant with treatment allocation, suggesting that there had been silent post randomisation exclusions of women delivered before the active phase of labour. We therefore conducted a secondary analysis (not in our protocol) of caesarean section among women who reached the active phase of labour and were therefore eligible for the intervention.\nOur analysis by 'intention-to-treat' found that, compared with continuation of IV oxytocin stimulation, discontinuation of IV oxytocin may reduce the caesarean delivery rate, risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.86, 9 trials, 1784 women, low-level certainty. However, restricting our analysis to women who reached the active phase of labour (using 'reached active phase' as our denominator) suggests there is probably little or no difference between groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29, 4 trials, 787 women, moderate-certainty evidence).\nDiscontinuation of IV oxytocin probably reduces the risk ofuterine tachysystole combined with abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) compared with continued IV oxytocin (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.46, 3 trials, 486 women, moderate-level certainty). We are uncertain about whether or not discontinuation increases the risk of chorioamnionitis (average RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.45, 1 trial, 252 women, very low-level certainty). Discontinuation of IV oxytocin may have little or no impact on the use of analgesia and epidural during labour compared to the use of continued IV oxytocin (RR 1.04 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14, 3 trials, 556 women, low-level certainty). Intrapartum cardiotocography (CTG) abnormalities (suspicious/pathological CTGs) are probably reduced by discontinuing IV oxytocin (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83, 7 trials, 1390 women, moderate-level certainty). Compared to continuing IV oxytocin, discontinuing IV oxytocin probably has little or no impact on the incidence of Apgar < 7 at five minutes (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.21, 4 trials, 893 women, low-level certainty), or and acidotic cord gasses at birth (arterial umbilical pH < 7.10), (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.13, 4 trials, 873 women, low-level certainty).\nMany of this review's maternal and infant secondary outcomes (including maternal and neonatal mortality) were not reported in the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDiscontinuing IV oxytocin stimulation after the active phase of labour has been established may reduce caesarean delivery but the evidence for this was low certainty. When restricting our analysis to those trials that separately reported participants who reached the active phase of labour, our results showed there is probably little or no difference between groups. Discontinuing IV oxytocin may reduce uterine tachysystole combined with abnormal FHR.\nMost of the trials had 'Risk of bias' concerns which means that these results should be interpreted with caution. Our GRADE assessments ranged from very low certainty to moderate certainty. Downgrading decisions were based on study limitations, imprecision and indirectness.\nFuture research could account for all women randomised and, in particular, note those who delivered before the point at which they would be eligible for the intervention (i.e. those who had caesareans in the latent phase), or because labour was so rapid that the infusion could not be stopped in time.\nFuture trials could adopt the outcomes listed in this review including maternal and neonatal mortality, maternal satisfaction, and breastfeeding.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Oxytocin is a natural hormone, which causes the uterus (womb) to have regular, painful contractions and labour to start. It is available as an intravenous (into a vein (IV)) drug and infused slowly to artificially stimulate labour if doctors or midwives feel that it is necessary to accelerate the birth of the baby, or if the mother requests it. In Western countries, about one in four pregnant women have labour induced, usually with prostaglandin drugs either alone or in combination with oxytocin.\nRisks associated with using IV oxytocin to stimulate uterine contractions include the woman having contractions that are too long or too frequent (uterine hyperstimulation), which can lead to changes in the baby’s heart rate and the need for emergency caesarean. This review examines whether stopping IV oxytocin once labour is well-established (i.e. the cervix is dilated more than halfway) reduces the associated risks for mother and baby compared to continuing with IV oxytocin."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5163 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany infants born preterm develop bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), with lung inflammation playing a role. Corticosteroids have powerful anti-inflammatory effects and have been used to treat individuals with established BPD. However, it is unclear whether any beneficial effects outweigh the adverse effects of these drugs.\nObjectives\nTo examine the relative benefits and adverse effects of late (starting at seven or more days after birth) systemic postnatal corticosteroid treatment for preterm infants with evolving or established BPD.\nSearch methods\nWe ran an updated search on 25 September 2020 of the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via OVID. We also searched clinical trials databases and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We did not include quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected for inclusion in this review RCTs comparing systemic (intravenous or oral) postnatal corticosteroid treatment versus placebo or no treatment started at seven or more days after birth for preterm infants with evolving or established BPD. We did not include trials of inhaled corticosteroids.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. We extracted and analysed data regarding clinical outcomes that included mortality, BPD, and cerebral palsy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nUse of the GRADE approach revealed that the certainty of evidence was high for most of the major outcomes considered, except for BPD at 36 weeks for all studies combined and for the dexamethasone subgroup, which were downgraded one level to moderate because of evidence of publication bias, and for the combined outcome of mortality or BPD at 36 weeks for all studies combined and for the dexamethasone subgroup, which were downgraded one level to moderate because of evidence of substantial heterogeneity.\nWe included 23 RCTs (1817 infants); 21 RCTS (1382 infants) involved dexamethasone (one also included hydrocortisone) and two RCTs (435 infants) involved hydrocortisone only. The overall risk of bias of included studies was low; all were RCTs and most trials used rigorous methods.\nLate systemic corticosteroids overall reduce mortality to the latest reported age (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.99; 21 studies, 1428 infants; high-certainty evidence). Within the subgroups by drug, neither dexamethasone (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.11; 19 studies, 993 infants; high-certainty evidence) nor hydrocortisone (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.02; 2 studies, 435 infants; high-certainty evidence) alone clearly reduce mortality to the latest reported age. We found little evidence for statistical heterogeneity between the dexamethasone and hydrocortisone subgroups (P = 0.51 for subgroup interaction).\nLate systemic corticosteroids overall probably reduce BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 14 studies, 988 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dexamethasone probably reduces BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87; 12 studies, 553 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), but hydrocortisone does not (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 2 studies, 435 infants; high-certainty evidence) (P < 0.001 for subgroup interaction).\nLate systemic corticosteroids overall probably reduce the combined outcome of mortality or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 14 studies, 988 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dexamethasone probably reduces the combined outcome of mortality or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; 12 studies, 553 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), but hydrocortisone does not (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 2 studies, 435 infants; high-certainty evidence) (P < 0.001 for subgroup interaction).\nLate systemic corticosteroids overall have little to no effect on cerebral palsy (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.61; 17 studies, 1290 infants; high-certainty evidence). We found little evidence for statistical heterogeneity between the dexamethasone and hydrocortisone subgroups (P = 0.63 for subgroup interaction).\nLate systemic corticosteroids overall have little to no effect on the combined outcome of mortality or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06; 17 studies, 1290 infants; high-certainty evidence). We found little evidence for statistical heterogeneity between the dexamethasone and hydrocortisone subgroups (P = 0.42 for subgroup interaction).\nStudies had few participants who were not intubated at enrolment; hence, it is not possible to make any meaningful comments on the effectiveness of late corticosteroids in preventing BPD in non-intubated infants, including those who might in the present day be supported by non-invasive techniques such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen/air mixture, but who might still be at high risk of later BPD.\nResults of two ongoing studies are awaited.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLate systemic postnatal corticosteroid treatment (started at seven days or more after birth) reduces the risks of mortality and BPD, and the combined outcome of mortality or BPD, without evidence of increased cerebral palsy. However, the methodological quality of studies determining long-term outcomes is limited, and no studies were powered to detect increased rates of important adverse long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. This review supports the use of late systemic corticosteroids for infants who cannot be weaned from mechanical ventilation. The role of late systemic corticosteroids for infants who are not intubated is unclear and needs further investigation. Longer-term follow-up into late childhood is vital for assessment of important outcomes that cannot be assessed in early childhood, such as effects of late systemic corticosteroid treatment on higher-order neurological functions, including cognitive function, executive function, academic performance, behaviour, mental health, motor function, and lung function. Further RCTs of late systemic corticosteroids should include longer-term survival free of neurodevelopmental disability as the primary outcome.\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 determine the benefits and harms associated with treatment consisting of drugs that suppress inflammation, called corticosteroids, given starting seven days of age or later to prevent or treat lung injury, known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (sometimes also called chronic lung disease), in babies born too early (preterm)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5164 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCoronary heart disease (CHD) is the single most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people live with CHD and may need support to manage their symptoms and improve prognosis. Cardiac rehabilitation is a complex multifaceted intervention which aims to improve the health outcomes of people with CHD. Cardiac rehabilitation consists of three core modalities: education, exercise training and psychological support. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011, which aims to investigate the specific impact of the educational component of cardiac rehabilitation.\nObjectives\n1. To assess the effects of patient education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation, compared with usual care on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare costs in patients with CHD.\n2. To explore the potential study level predictors of the effects of patient education in patients with CHD (e.g. individual versus group intervention, timing with respect to index cardiac event).\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches from the previous Cochrane review, by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) in June 2016. Three trials registries, previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies were also searched. No language restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\n1. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the primary interventional intent was education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation.\n2. Studies with a minimum of six-months follow-up and published in 1990 or later.\n3. Adults with a diagnosis of CHD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on the above inclusion criteria. One author extracted study characteristics from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. Two independent reviewers extracted outcome data onto a standardised collection form. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome. Heterogeneity amongst included studies was explored qualitatively and quantitatively. Where appropriate and possible, results from included studies were combined for each outcome to give an overall estimate of treatment effect. Given the degree of clinical heterogeneity seen in participant selection, interventions and comparators across studies, we decided it was appropriate to pool studies using random-effects modelling. We planned to undertake subgroup analysis and stratified meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression to examine potential treatment effect modifiers. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to create summary of findings tables.\nMain results\nThis updated review included a total of 22 trials which randomised 76,864 people with CHD to an education intervention or a 'no education' comparator. Nine new trials (8215 people) were included for this update. We judged most included studies as low risk of bias across most domains. Educational 'dose' ranged from one 40 minute face-to-face session plus a 15 minute follow-up call, to a four-week residential stay with 11 months of follow-up sessions. Control groups received usual medical care, typically consisting of referral to an outpatient cardiologist, primary care physician, or both.\nWe found no difference in effect of education-based interventions on total mortality (13 studies, 10,075 participants; 189/5187 (3.6%) versus 222/4888 (4.6%); random effects risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.05; moderate quality evidence). Individual causes of mortality were reported rarely, and we were unable to report separate results for cardiovascular mortality or non-cardiovascular mortality. There was no evidence of a difference in effect of education-based interventions on fatal and/or non fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (2 studies, 209 participants; 7/107 (6.5%) versus 12/102 (11.8%); random effects RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48; very low quality of evidence). However, there was some evidence of a reduction with education in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events (2 studies, 310 studies; 21/152 (13.8%) versus 61/158 (38.6%); random effects RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56; low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in effect of education on the rate of total revascularisations (3 studies, 456 participants; 5/228 (2.2%) versus 8/228 (3.5%); random effects RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71; very low quality evidence) or hospitalisations (5 studies, 14,849 participants; 656/10048 (6.5%) versus 381/4801 (7.9%); random effects RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for all cause withdrawal (17 studies, 10,972 participants; 525/5632 (9.3%) versus 493/5340 (9.2%); random effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; low quality evidence). Although some health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domain scores were higher with education, there was no consistent evidence of superiority across all domains.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no reduction in total mortality, in people who received education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation, compared to people in control groups (moderate quality evidence). There were no improvements in fatal or non fatal MI, total revascularisations or hospitalisations, with education. There was some evidence of a reduction in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events with education, but this was based on only two studies. There was also some evidence to suggest that education-based interventions may improve HRQoL. Our findings are supportive of current national and international clinical guidelines that cardiac rehabilitation for people with CHD should be comprehensive and include educational interventions together with exercise and psychological therapy. Further definitive research into education interventions for people with CHD is 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": "Findings of this update are similar to the last review version (2011). Patient education, as part of a cardiac rehabilitation programme, does not contribute to fewer deaths, further heart attacks, heart by-pass or angioplasty, or admission to hospital for heart-related problems. There is some evidence of fewer other heart-related events and improvements in health-related quality of life with education-based interventions. Individual causes of death were not reported, so we were unable to determine how many people in the studies died from heart-related causes or other causes of death.\nAlthough there is insufficient information at present to fully understand the benefits or harms of patient education for people with heart disease, our findings broadly support current guidelines that people with heart disease should receive comprehensive rehabilitation that includes education. Further research is needed to evaluate the most clinically and cost-effective ways of providing education for people with heart disease."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5165 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany people receiving palliative care have reduced oral intake during their illness, and particularly at the end of their life. Management of this can include the provision of medically assisted hydration (MAH) with the aim of improving their quality of life (QoL), prolonging their life, or both. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 2, 2008, and updated in February 2011 and March 2014.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of MAH compared with placebo and standard care, in adults receiving palliative care on their QoL and survival, and to assess for potential adverse events.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, CareSearch, Dissertation Abstracts, Science Citation Index and the reference lists of all eligible studies, key textbooks, and previous systematic reviews. The date of the latest search conducted on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase was 17 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of studies of MAH in adults receiving palliative care aged 18 and above. The criteria for inclusion was the comparison of MAH to placebo or standard care.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance, and two review authors extracted data and performed risk of bias assessment. The primary outcome was QoL using validated scales; secondary outcomes were survival and adverse events. For continuous outcomes, we measured the arithmetic mean and standard deviation (SD), and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between groups. For dichotomous outcomes, we estimated and compared the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs between groups. For time-to-event data, we planned to calculate the survival time from the date of randomisation and to estimate and express the intervention effect as the hazard ratio (HR). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.\nMain results\nWe identified one new study (200 participants), for a total of four studies included in this update (422 participants). All participants had a diagnosis of advanced cancer. With the exception of 29 participants who had a haematological malignancy, all others were solid organ cancers. Two studies each compared MAH to placebo and standard care. There were too few included studies to evaluate different subgroups, such as type of participant, intervention, timing of intervention, and study site. We considered one study to be at high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding; otherwise, risk of bias was assessed as low or unclear.\nMAH compared with placebo\nQuality of life\nOne study measured change in QoL at one week using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) (scale from 0 to 108; higher score = better QoL). No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves QoL (MD 4.10, 95% CI −1.63 to 9.83; 1 study, 93 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nSurvival\nOne study reported on survival from study enrolment to last date of follow-up or death. We were unable to estimate HR. No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves survival (1 study, 93 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events\nOne study reported on intensity of adverse events at two days using a numeric rating scale (scale from 0 to 10; lower score = less toxicity). No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH leads to adverse events (injection site pain: MD 0.35, 95% CI −1.19 to 1.89; injection site swelling MD −0.59, 95% CI −1.40 to 0.22; 1 study, 49 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nMAH compared with standard care\nQuality of life\nNo data were available for QoL.\nSurvival\nOne study measured survival from randomisation to last date of follow-up at 14 days or death. No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves survival (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 1 study, 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events\nTwo studies measured adverse events at follow-up (range 2 to 14 days). We are uncertain whether MAH leads to adverse events (RR 11.62, 95% CI 1.62 to 83.41; 2 studies, 242 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince the previous update of this review, we have found one new study. In adults receiving palliative care in the end stage of their illness, there remains insufficient evidence to determine whether MAH improves QoL or prolongs survival, compared with placebo or standard care. Given that all participants were inpatients with advanced cancer at end of life, our findings are not transferable to adults receiving palliative care in other settings, for non-cancer, dementia or neurodegenerative diseases, or for those with an extended prognosis. Clinicians will need to make decisions based on the perceived benefits and harms of MAH for each individual's circumstances, without the benefit of high-quality evidence to guide them.\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 4 studies that involved a total of 422 people. Two studies compared medically administered fluids to placebo, and two compared medically administered fluids to standard care. The largest study was in 200 people, and the smallest study was in 42 people; studies lasted between 2 and 14 days. The age of people in the studies ranged from 28 to 98 years, of whom 226 were women and 196 were men. The studies were conducted in countries around the world, including the UK, the USA, and Argentina. Two studies were funded by clinical research grants. We found no studies where people did not have an advanced cancer diagnosis."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5166 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIt is estimated that 1.5 billion people are infected with soil-transmitted helminths (STHs) worldwide. Re-infection occurs rapidly following deworming, and interruption of transmission is unlikely without complementary control efforts such as improvements in water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) access and behaviours.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of WASH interventions to prevent STH infection.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 19 October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included interventions to improve WASH access or practices in communities where STHs are endemic. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as trials with an external control group where participants (or clusters) were allocated to different interventions using a non-random method (non-RCTs). We did not include observational study designs. Our primary outcome was prevalence of any STH infection. Prevalence of individual worms was a secondary outcome, including for Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura, hookworm (Ancylostoma duodenale or Necator americanus), or Strongyloides stercoralis. Intensity of infection, measured as a count of eggs per gram of faeces for each species, was another secondary outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts and full-text records for eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for RCTs and the EPOC tool for non-RCTs. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool study estimates. We used Moran’s I² statistic to assess heterogeneity and conducted subgroup analyses to explore sources of heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 32 studies (16 RCTs and 16 non-RCTs) involving a total of 52,944 participants in the review. Twenty-two studies (14 RCTs (16 estimates) and eight non-RCTs (11 estimates)) reported on our primary outcome, prevalence of infection with at least one STH species. Twenty-one studies reported on the prevalence of A lumbricoides (12 RCTs and 9 non-RCTs); 17 on the prevalence of T trichiura (9 RCTs and 8 non-RCTs); 18 on the prevalence of hookworm (10 RCTs and 8 non-RCTs); and one on the prevalence of S stercoralis (1 non-RCT). Sixteen studies measured the intensity of infection for an individual STH type. Ten RCTs and five non-RCTs reported on the intensity of infection of A lumbricoides; eight RCTs and five non-RCTs measured the intensity of infection of T trichiura; and eight RCTs and five non-RCTs measured the intensity of hookworm infection. No studies reported on the intensity of infection of S stercoralis.\nThe overall pooled effect estimates showed that the WASH interventions under study may result in a slight reduction of any STH infection, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.86 amongst RCTs (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence) and an OR of 0.71 amongst non-RCTs (95% CI 0.54 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence). All six of the meta-analyses assessing individual worm infection amongst both RCTs and non-RCTs had pooled estimates in the preventive direction, although all CIs encapsulated the null, leaving the possibility of the null or even harmful effects; the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Individual studies assessing intensity of infection showed mixed evidence supporting WASH. Subgroup analyses focusing on narrow specific subsets of water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions did very little to elucidate which interventions might be better than others. Data on intensity of infection (e.g. faecal egg count) were reported in a variety of ways across studies, precluding the pooling of results for this outcome.\nWe did not find any studies reporting adverse events resulting from the WASH interventions under study or from mass drug administration (MDA).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhilst the available evidence suggests that the WASH interventions under study may slightly protect against STH infection, WASH also serves as a broad preventive measure for many other diseases that have a faecal oral transmission route of transmission. As many of the studies were done in addition to MDA/deworming (i.e. MDA was ongoing in both the intervention and control arm), our data support WHO recommendations for implementation of improvements to basic sanitation and adequate access to safe water alongside MDA. The biological plausibility for improved access to WASH to interrupt transmission of STHs is clear, but WASH interventions as currently delivered have shown impacts that were lower than expected. There is a need for more rigorous and targeted implementation research and process evaluations in order that future WASH interventions can better provide benefit to users. Inconsistent reporting of the intensity of infection underscores the need to define the minimal, standard data that should be collected globally on STHs to enable pooled analyses and comparisons.\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": "This review summarizes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (studies where participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more treatment groups) and non-randomized trials (non-RCTs) evaluating the effect of water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions on preventing soil-transmitted helminth infections.\nSoil-transmitted helminths (STHs) comprise a group of intestinal parasites that are transmitted to humans through ingestion of infective eggs or transcutaneous (through the skin) penetration of larvae excreted in human faeces which contaminate the soil and water sources. Even with deworming efforts, re-infection occurs rapidly, and interruption of transmission is unlikely without complementary control efforts. Environmental improvements, such as access to and use of safe and adequate water, basic sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), is thought to be essential to sustain reductions in re-infection and to reduce illness."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5167 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSymptoms of anxiety and depression are common in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Antidepressants are taken by approximately 30% of people with IBD. However, there are no current guidelines on treating co-morbid anxiety and depression in people with IBD with antidepressants, nor are there clear data on the role of antidepressants in managing physical symptoms of IBD.\nObjectives\nThe objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for treating anxiety and depression in IBD, and to assess the effects of antidepressants on quality of life (QoL) and managing disease activity in IBD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE; Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 23 August 2018. Reference lists, trials registers, conference proceedings and grey literature were also searched.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing any type of antidepressant to placebo, no treatment or an active therapy for IBD were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess quality of observational studies. GRADE was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence supporting the outcomes. Primary outcomes included anxiety and depression. Anxiety was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) or the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS). Depression was assessed using HADS or the Beck Depression Inventory. Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, withdrawal due to AEs, quality of life (QoL), clinical remission, relapse, pain, hospital admissions, surgery, and need for steroid treatment. QoL was assessed using the WHO-QOL-BREF questionnaire. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. A fixed-effect model was used for analysis.\nMain results\nWe included four studies (188 participants). Two studies were double-blind RCTs, one was a non-randomised controlled trial, and one was an observational retrospective case-matched study. The age of participants ranged from 27 to 37.8 years. In three studies participants had quiescent IBD and in one study participants had active or quiescent IBD. Participants in one study had co-morbid anxiety or depression. One study used duloxetine (60 mg daily), one study used fluoxetine (20 mg daily), one study used tianeptine (36 mg daily), and one study used various antidepressants in clinical ranges. Three studies had placebo controls and one study had a no treatment control group. One RCT was rated as low risk of bias and the other was rated as high risk of bias (incomplete outcome data). The non-randomised controlled trial was rated as high risk of bias (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding). The observational study was rated as high methodological quality, but is still considered to be at high risk of bias given its observational design.\nThe effect of antidepressants on anxiety and depression is uncertain. At 12 weeks, the mean anxiety score in antidepressant participants was 6.11 + 3 compared to 8.5 + 3.45 in placebo participants (MD -2.39, 95% -4.30 to -0.48, 44 participants, low certainty evidence). At 12 months, the mean anxiety score in antidepressant participants was 3.8 + 2.5 compared to 4.2 + 4.9 in placebo participants (MD -0.40, 95% -3.47 to 2.67, 26 participants; low certainty evidence). At 12 weeks, the mean depression score in antidepressant participants was 7.47 + 2.42 compared to 10.5 + 3.57 in placebo participants (MD -3.03, 95% CI -4.83 to -1.23, 44 participants; low certainty evidence). At 12 months, the mean depression score in antidepressant participants was 2.9 + 2.8 compared to 3.1 + 3.4 in placebo participants (MD -0.20, 95% -2.62 to 2.22, 26 participants; low certainty evidence).\nThe effect of antidepressants on AEs is uncertain. Fifty-seven per cent (8/14) of antidepressant participants group reported AEs versus 25% (3/12) of placebo participants (RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.78 to 6.73, low certainty evidence). Commonly reported AEs include nausea, headache, dizziness, drowsiness, sexual problems, insomnia, fatigue, low mood/anxiety, dry mouth, muscle spasms and hot flushes. None of the included studies reported any serious AEs. None of the included studies reported on pain.\nOne study (44 participants) reported on QoL at 12 weeks and another study (26 participants) reported on QoL at 12 months. Physical, Psychological, Social and Environmental QoL were improved at 12 weeks compared to placebo (all low certainty evidence). There were no group differences in QoL at 12 months (all low certainty evidence). The effect of antidepressants on maintenance of clinical remission and endoscopic relapse is uncertain. At 12 months, 64% (9/14) of participants in the antidepressant group maintained clinical remission compared to 67% (8/12) of placebo participants (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.69; low certainty evidence). At 12 months, none (0/30) of participants in the antidepressant group had endoscopic relapse compared to 10% (3/30) of placebo participants (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.65; very low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain and no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in IBD can be drawn. Future studies should employ RCT designs, with a longer follow-up and develop solutions to address attrition. Inclusion of objective markers of disease activity is strongly recommended as is testing antidepressants from different classes, as at present it is unclear if any antidepressant (or class thereof) has differential efficacy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are antidepressants?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Antidepressants are drugs used to treat depression and other mental disorders such as anxiety. No antidepressants are currently approved by regulatory agencies for specifically treating anxiety and depression, to manage physical symptoms or to reduce bowel inflammation in people with IBD. However, some antidepressants have indications for treatment of pain in chronic conditions and have been commonly used to manage functional bowel symptoms in conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5168 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.\nSearch methods\nIn this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes.\nMain results\nOf a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials.\nThere was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I2=40%).\nThere was little or no difference in postoperative mortality (risk difference (RD) -0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; eight trials, 818 participants, high-certainty evidence); postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.40; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence); postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59; six trials, 742 participants, low-certainty evidence); intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; seven trials, 788 participants, low-certainty evidence); bile leakage (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.91; seven trials, 606 participants, low-certainty evidence); reoperation rate (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.36; five trials, 682 participants, low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (MD -0.21; 95% CI -1.41 to 0.99; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nOnly one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of 73 participants, also without a relevant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, due to some degree of heterogeneity, inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We did not identify relevant differences in delayed gastric emptying; postoperative mortality; postoperative pancreatic fistula, or other complications; reoperations; or length of hospital stay. Quality of life, only reported for a subset of participants in one trial, did not differ between the two groups. Our results do not suggest any relevant differences between antecolic and retrocolic reconstruction of the gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5169 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAutism spectrum disorder (autism) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by impairments in social communication and interaction, plus restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour and interests. Whilst some people embrace autism as part of their identity, others struggle with their difficulties, and some seek treatment. There are no current interventions that result in complete reduction of autism features.\nAcetylcholine is a neurotransmitter for the cholinergic system and has a role in attention, novelty seeking, and memory. Low levels of acetylcholine have been investigated as a potential contributor to autism symptomatology. Donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine (commonly referred to as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors) all inhibit acetylcholinesterase, and have slightly different modes of action and biological availability, so their effectiveness and side-effect profiles may vary. The effect of various acetylcholinesterase inhibitor on core autism features across the lifespan, and possible adverse effects, have not been thoroughly investigated.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and harms of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for people with the core features (social interaction, communication, and restrictive and repetitive behaviours) of autism.\nTo assess the effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on non-core features of autism.\nSearch methods\nIn November 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (e.g. galantamine, donepezil, or rivastigmine) of varying doses, delivered orally or via transdermal patch, either as monotherapy or adjunct therapy, with placebo. People of any age, with a clinical diagnosis of autism were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were core features of autism and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were language, irritability, hyperactivity, and general health and function. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs (74 participants). One study was conducted in Iran, the second in the USA, although exact location in the USA is unclear.\nGalantamine plus risperidone versus placebo plus risperidone\nOne study compared the effects of galantamine plus risperidone to placebo plus risperidone (40 participants, aged 4 years to 12 years). Primary and secondary outcomes of interest were measured postintervention, using subscales of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (score 0 to 3; higher scores = greater impairment). Very low-certainty evidence showed there was little to no difference between the two groups postintervention for social communication (mean difference (MD) -2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.88 to 0.38), and restricted and repetitive behaviour (MD -0.55, 95% CI -3.47 to 2.37). Overall autism features were not assessed. Adverse events may be higher in the galantamine plus risperidone group (75%) compared with the placebo plus risperidone group (35%): odds ratio 5.57, 95% CI 1.42 to 21.86, low-certainty evidence. No serious adverse events were reported. Low-certainty evidence showed a small difference in irritability (MD -3.50, 95% CI -6.39 to -0.61), with the galantamine plus risperidone group showing a greater decline on the irritability subscale than the placebo group postintervention. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in hyperactivity postintervention (MD -5.20, 95% CI -10.51 to 0.11). General health and function were not assessed.\nDonepezil versus placebo\nOne study compared donepezil to placebo (34 participants aged 8 years to 17 years). Primary outcomes of interest were measured postintervention, using subscales of the Modified Version of The Real Life Rating Scale (scored 0 to 3; higher scores = greater impairment). Very low-certainty evidence showed no evidence of group differences immediately postintervention in overall autism features (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.33), or in the autism symptom domains of social communication (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.30), and restricted and repetitive behaviours (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.35). Significant adverse events leading to study withdrawal in at least one participant was implied in the data analysis section, but not explicitly reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of donepezil, compared to placebo, on the secondary outcomes of interest, including irritability (MD 1.08, 95% CI -0.41 to 2.57), hyperactivity (MD 2.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.70), and general health and function (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.54) postintervention.\nAcross all analyses within this comparison, we judged the evidence to be very low-certainty due to high risk of bias, and very serious imprecision (results based on one small study with wide confidence intervals). The study narratively reported adverse events for the study as a whole, rather than by treatment group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence about the effectiveness of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors as a medication to improve outcomes for autistic adults is lacking, and for autistic children is very uncertain.\nThere is a need for more evidence of improvement in outcomes of relevance to clinical care, autistic people, and their families. There are a number of ongoing studies involving acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, and future updates of this review may add to the current evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is autism spectrum disorder?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Autism spectrum disorder (autism) is a condition that affects the way a person thinks, feels, interacts with others, and experiences their environment. The core behaviours of autism include reduced sharing of interests, difficulties with nonverbal communication (for example, little eye contact), difficulties forming and maintaining relationships and restricted, or repetitive behaviours or interests. These behaviours can vary in severity, but they still interfere with the person's daily functioning and participation in activities. Medicines, called acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (chemicals that block the normal breakdown of nerve transmitters), have been used to treat Alzheimer's disease (for example, donepezil and galantamine). Recently, it has been suggested that they may also decrease some of the difficulties seen in people with autism."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5170 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMelanoma is one of the most aggressive forms of skin cancer, with the potential to metastasise to other parts of the body via the lymphatic system and the bloodstream. Melanoma accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Various imaging tests can be used with the aim of detecting metastatic spread of disease following a primary diagnosis of melanoma (primary staging) or on clinical suspicion of disease recurrence (re-staging). Accurate staging is crucial to ensuring that patients are directed to the most appropriate and effective treatment at different points on the clinical pathway. Establishing the comparative accuracy of ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT imaging for detection of nodal or distant metastases, or both, is critical to understanding if, how, and where on the pathway these tests might be used.\nObjectives\nPrimary objectives\nWe estimated accuracy separately according to the point in the clinical pathway at which imaging tests were used. Our objectives were:\n• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound or PET-CT for detection of nodal metastases before sentinel lymph node biopsy in adults with confirmed cutaneous invasive melanoma; and\n• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for whole body imaging in adults with cutaneous invasive melanoma:\n○ for detection of any metastasis in adults with a primary diagnosis of melanoma (i.e. primary staging at presentation); and\n○ for detection of any metastasis in adults undergoing staging of recurrence of melanoma (i.e. re-staging prompted by findings on routine follow-up).\nWe undertook separate analyses according to whether accuracy data were reported per patient or per lesion.\nSecondary objectives\nWe sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for whole body imaging (detection of any metastasis) in mixed or not clearly described populations of adults with cutaneous invasive melanoma.\nFor study participants undergoing primary staging or re-staging (for possible recurrence), and for mixed or unclear populations, our objectives were:\n• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for detection of nodal metastases;\n• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for detection of distant metastases; and\n• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for detection of distant metastases according to metastatic site.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 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 as well as published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies of any design that evaluated ultrasound (with or without the use of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC)), CT, MRI, or PET-CT for staging of cutaneous melanoma in adults, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or imaging with clinical follow-up of at least three months' duration. We excluded studies reporting multiple applications of the same test in more than 10% of study participants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2)). We estimated accuracy using the bivariate hierarchical method to produce summary sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence and prediction regions. We undertook analysis of studies allowing direct and indirect comparison between tests. We examined heterogeneity between studies by visually inspecting the forest plots of sensitivity and specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots. Numbers of identified studies were insufficient to allow formal investigation of potential sources of heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 39 publications reporting on 5204 study participants; 34 studies reporting data per patient included 4980 study participants with 1265 cases of metastatic disease, and seven studies reporting data per lesion included 417 study participants with 1846 potentially metastatic lesions, 1061 of which were confirmed metastases. The risk of bias was low or unclear for all domains apart from participant flow. Concerns regarding applicability of the evidence were high or unclear for almost all domains. Participant selection from mixed or not clearly defined populations and poorly described application and interpretation of index tests were particularly problematic.\nThe accuracy of imaging for detection of regional nodal metastases before sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was evaluated in 18 studies. In 11 studies (2614 participants; 542 cases), the summary sensitivity of ultrasound alone was 35.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0% to 59.4%) and specificity was 93.9% (95% CI 86.1% to 97.5%). Combining pre-SLNB ultrasound with FNAC revealed summary sensitivity of 18.0% (95% CI 3.58% to 56.5%) and specificity of 99.8% (95% CI 99.1% to 99.9%) (1164 participants; 259 cases). Four studies demonstrated lower sensitivity (10.2%, 95% CI 4.31% to 22.3%) and specificity (96.5%,95% CI 87.1% to 99.1%) for PET-CT before SLNB (170 participants, 49 cases). When these data are translated to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people eligible for SLNB, 237 of whom have nodal metastases (median prevalence), the combination of ultrasound with FNAC potentially allows 43 people with nodal metastases to be triaged directly to adjuvant therapy rather than having SLNB first, at a cost of two people with false positive results (who are incorrectly managed). Those with a false negative ultrasound will be identified on subsequent SLNB.\nLimited test accuracy data were available for whole body imaging via PET-CT for primary staging or re-staging for disease recurrence, and none evaluated MRI. Twenty-four studies evaluated whole body imaging. Six of these studies explored primary staging following a confirmed diagnosis of melanoma (492 participants), three evaluated re-staging of disease following some clinical indication of recurrence (589 participants), and 15 included mixed or not clearly described population groups comprising participants at a number of different points on the clinical pathway and at varying stages of disease (1265 participants). Results for whole body imaging could not be translated to a hypothetical cohort of people due to paucity of data.\nMost of the studies (6/9) of primary disease or re-staging of disease considered PET-CT, two in comparison to CT alone, and three studies examined the use of ultrasound. No eligible evaluations of MRI in these groups were identified. All studies used histological reference standards combined with follow-up, and two included FNAC for some participants. Observed accuracy for detection of any metastases for PET-CT was higher for re-staging of disease (summary sensitivity from two studies: 92.6%, 95% CI 85.3% to 96.4%; specificity: 89.7%, 95% CI 78.8% to 95.3%; 153 participants; 95 cases) compared to primary staging (sensitivities from individual studies ranged from 30% to 47% and specificities from 73% to 88%), and was more sensitive than CT alone in both population groups, but participant numbers were very small.\nNo conclusions can be drawn regarding routine imaging of the brain via MRI or CT.\nAuthors' conclusions\nReview authors found a disappointing lack of evidence on the accuracy of imaging in people with a diagnosis of melanoma at different points on the clinical pathway. Studies were small and often reported data according to the number of lesions rather than the number of study participants. Imaging with ultrasound combined with FNAC before SLNB may identify around one-fifth of those with nodal disease, but confidence intervals are wide and further work is needed to establish cost-effectiveness. Much of the evidence for whole body imaging for primary staging or re-staging of disease is focused on PET-CT, and comparative data with CT or MRI are lacking. Future studies should go beyond diagnostic accuracy and consider the effects of different imaging tests on disease management. The increasing availability of adjuvant therapies for people with melanoma at high risk of disease spread at presentation will have a considerable impact on imaging services, yet evidence for the relative diagnostic accuracy of available tests is limited.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the implications of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Reviewers found some evidence to support the use of imaging with ultrasound combined with FNAC before sentinel lymph node biopsy, but further work is needed to establish cost-effectiveness. Limited evidence is available for whole body imaging for primary staging or re-staging of disease. Available evidence is focused on PET-CT; there are few comparisons with CT and no comparisons with MRI. Future research needs to look at more than test accuracy and must consider the effects of different imaging tests on treatment decisions for patients."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5171 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPelvic radiotherapy is a treatment delivered to an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 people annually across high-income countries. Fractures due to normal stresses on weakened bone due to radiotherapy are termed insufficiency fractures. Pelvic radiotherapy-related interruption of the blood supply to the hip is termed avascular necrosis and is another recognised complication. The reported incidences of insufficiency fractures are 2.7% to 89% and risk of developing avascular necrosis is 0.5%. These complications lead to significant morbidity in terms of pain, immobility and consequently risk of infections, pressure sores and mortality.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for preventing insufficiency fractures and avascular necrosis in adults over 18 years of age undergoing pelvic radiotherapy.\nSearch methods\nWe performed electronic literature searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and DARE to 19 April 2017. We also searched trial registries. Further relevant studies were identified through handsearching of citation lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non RCTs with concurrent comparison groups including quasi-RCTs, cluster RCTs, prospective cohort studies and case series of 30 or more participants were screened. We included studies assessing the effect of pharmacological interventions in adults over 18 years of age undergoing radical pelvic radiotherapy as part of anticancer treatment for a primary pelvic malignancy. We excluded studies involving radiotherapy for bone metastases. We assessed use of pharmacological interventions at any stage before or during pelvic radiotherapy. Interventions included calcium or vitamin D (or both) supplementation, bisphosphonates, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, hormone replacement therapy (oestrogen or testosterone), denosumab and calcitonin.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. Data were to be pooled using the random-effects model if study comparisons were similar, otherwise results were to be reported narratively.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs (1167 participants). The first RCT compared zoledronic acid with placebo in 96 men undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer.\nThe second RCT had four treatment arms, two of which evaluated zoledronic acid plus adjuvant androgen suppression compared with androgen suppression only in 1071 men undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer.\nBoth studies were at a moderate to high risk of bias and all evidence was judged to be of very low certainty.\nThe studies provided no evidence on the primary outcomes of the review and provided limited data in relation to secondary outcomes, such that meta-analyses were not possible. Both studies focused on interventions to improve bone health in relation to androgen deprivation rather than radiation-related insufficiency fractures and avascular necrosis. Few fractures were described in each study and those described were not specific to insufficiency fractures secondary to radiotherapy. Both studies reported that zoledronic acid in addition to androgen deprivation and pelvic radiotherapy led to improvements in BMD; however, the changes in BMD were measured and reported differently. There was no available evidence regarding adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence relating to interventions to prevent insufficiency fractures and avascular necrosis associated with pelvic radiotherapy in adults is of very low certainty. This review highlights the need for prospective clinical trials using interventions prior to and during radiotherapy to prevent radiation-related bone morbidity, insufficiency fractures and avascular necrosis. Future trials could involve prospective assessment of bone health including BMD and bone turnover markers prior to pelvic radiotherapy. The interventions for investigation could begin as radiotherapy commences and remain ongoing for 12 to 24 months. Bone turnover markers and BMD could be used as surrogate markers for bone health in addition to radiographic imaging to report on presence of insufficiency fractures and development of avascular necrosis. Clinical assessments and patient reported outcomes would help to identify any associated adverse effects of treatment and quality of life outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found two studies where people were randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups (called randomised controlled trials) which were sufficiently relevant to the review topic. Both studies, which involved 1167 participants altogether, were conducted in men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer and evaluated a bisphosphonate medicine called zoledronic acid. These men also received hormone treatment for their condition as reduced bone mineral density (BMD; how many minerals are in the bones, which determines how solid and strong the bones are) is a known side effect of this treatment. Studies measured and reported outcomes differently and we were unable to pool their results (data); however, limited evidence suggested that zoledronic acid might improve BMD in this specific group (men with prostate cancer) who received both hormone treatment and radiotherapy. There were few fractures or avascular necrosis events in the studies, therefore, it is very uncertain whether zoledronic acid has an impact on these important outcomes. As the studies were not specifically designed to evaluate the effect of zoledronic acid on radiotherapy-related bone outcomes, and participants also received hormone treatment, it is very uncertain whether the evidence applies to people undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for other cancers and people not receiving adjuvant hormone treatment.\nBoth studies were at a moderate to high risk of bias and all evidence was judged to be of very low certainty."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5172 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAccurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.\nMain results\nWe included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test.\nRisk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection.\nThe 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants.\nWe observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased.\nSensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people.\nAt 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAntigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies.\nEvidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to know whether commercially available, rapid point-of-care antigen tests are accurate enough to diagnose COVID-19 infection reliably, and to find out if accuracy differs in people with and without symptoms."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5173 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDeep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality.\nMeta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nFor oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is deep vein thrombosis treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "If a DVT is confirmed, people are treated with an anticoagulant: a medicine that either treats or prevents blood clots, often called a 'blood thinner'. Previously, the medicines of choice were heparin, fondaparinux and vitamin K antagonists, known as 'conventional anticoagulants'. However, these medicines can cause side effects and have limitations.\nTwo types of anticoagulant have been developed: direct thrombin inhibitors (DTI) and factor Xa inhibitors. These anticoagulants are given orally (that is, by mouth, in the form of a pill), have a predictable effect, do not require frequent monitoring or re-dosing (taking multiple doses), and have few known interactions with other medicines. For these reasons, direct oral anticoagulants have become the medicines of choice for treating DVT."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5174 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited progressive life-limiting disease characterised by the build-up of abnormally thick, sticky mucus affecting mostly the lungs, pancreas, and digestive system. Airway clearance techniques (ACTs), traditionally referred to as chest physiotherapy, are recommended as part of a complex treatment programme for people with CF. The aim of an ACTs is to enhance mucociliary clearance and remove viscous secretions from the airways within the lung to prevent distal airway obstruction. This reduces the infective burden and associated inflammatory effects on the airway epithelia.\nThere are a number of recognised ACTs, none of which have shown superiority in improving short-term outcomes related to mucus transport. This systematic review, which has been updated regularly since it was first published in 2000, considers the efficacy of ACTs compared to not performing any ACT in adults and children with CF. It is important to continue to review this evidence, particularly the long-term outcomes, given the recent introduction of highly effective modulator therapies and the improved health outcomes and potential changes to CF management associated with these drugs.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and acceptability of airway clearance techniques compared to no airway clearance techniques or cough alone in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings, to 17 October 2022. We searched ongoing trials registers (Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 7 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised studies that compared airway clearance techniques (chest physiotherapy) with no airway clearance techniques or spontaneous cough alone in people with CF.\nData collection and analysis\nBoth review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 11 cross-over studies (153 participants) and one parallel study (41 participants). There were differences between studies in how the interventions were delivered, with several intervention groups combining more than one ACT. One study used autogenic drainage; five used conventional chest physiotherapy; nine used positive expiratory pressure (PEP), with one study varying the water pressure between arms; three studies used oscillating PEP; two used exercise; and two used high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO). Of the 12 included studies, 10 were single-treatment studies, and two delivered the intervention over two consecutive days (once daily in one study, twice daily in the second). This substantial heterogeneity in the treatment interventions precluded pooling of data for meta-analysis. Blinding of participants, caregivers, and clinicians is impossible in airway clearance studies; we therefore judged all studies at unclear risk of performance bias. Lack of information in eight studies made assessment of risk of bias unclear for most other domains.\nWe rated the certainty of evidence as low or very low due to the short-term cross-over trial design, small numbers of participants, and uncertain risk of bias across most or all domains.\nSix studies (84 participants) reported no effect on pulmonary function variables following intervention; but one study (14 participants) reported an improvement in pulmonary function following the intervention in some of the treatment groups. Two studies reported lung clearance index: one (41 participants) found a variable response to treatment with HFCWO, whilst another (15 participants) found no effect on lung clearance index with PEP therapy (low-certainty evidence). Five studies (55 participants) reported that ACTs, including coughing, increased radioactive tracer clearance compared to control, while a further study (eight participants) reported no improvement in radioactive tracer clearance when comparing PEP to control, although coughing was discouraged during the PEP intervention. We rated the certainty of evidence on the effect of ACTs on radioactive tracer clearance as very low.\nFour studies (46 participants) investigated the weight of mucus cleared from the lungs and reported greater secretions during chest physiotherapy compared to a control. One study (18 participants) reported no differences in sputum weight (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence from this review shows that ACTs may have short-term effects on increasing mucus transport in people with CF. All included studies had short-term follow-up; consequently, we were unable to draw any conclusions on the long-term effects of ACTs compared to no ACTs in people with CF.\nThe evidence in this review represents the use of airway clearance techniques in a CF population before widespread use of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of airway clearance in those treated with highly effective CFTR modulators.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 12 studies that enrolled 194 people with cystic fibrosis. The studies were very different and some looked at multiple treatments compared to no treatment. One study used autogenic drainage (a controlled breathing technique which uses different speeds and depths of exhaled breath to move mucus up the airways so it can be cleared by coughing); five studies used conventional chest physiotherapy (manual techniques of percussion and vibration applied to the chest wall, usually with the assistance of a physiotherapist or relative); nine used positive expiratory pressure (breathing out through a mask or mouthpiece against a resistance which causes pressure to build up in the lungs to move the mucus), and one of these varied pressure so used both standard and high-pressure positive expiratory pressure; three studies used oscillating positive expiratory pressure (positive expiratory pressure combined with vibrations within the airway to loosen mucus); two used exercise (on a treadmill); and two used high-frequency chest wall oscillation (high frequency vibrations applied outside the chest wall via an inflatable garment). We could not combine any results to analyse them statistically."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5175 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) is a common symptom. Non-prescription, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines are frequently recommended as a first-line treatment, but there is little evidence as to whether these drugs are effective.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of oral OTC cough preparations for acute cough in children and adults in community settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March week 3 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2014), CINAHL (January 2010 to March 2014), LILACS (January 2010 to March 2014), Web of Science (January 2010 to March 2014) and the UK Department of Health National Research Register (March 2010).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral OTC cough preparations with placebo in children and adults suffering from acute cough in community settings. We considered all cough outcomes; secondary outcomes of interest were adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened potentially relevant citations, extracted data and assessed study quality. We performed quantitative analysis where appropriate.\nMain results\nDue to the small numbers of trials in each category, the limited quantitative data available and the marked differences between trials in terms of participants, interventions and outcome measurement, we felt that pooling of the results was inappropriate.\nWe included 29 trials (19 in adults, 10 in children) involving 4835 people (3799 adults and 1036 children). All studies were placebo-controlled RCTs. However, assessment of the risk of bias of the included studies was limited by poor reporting, particularly for the earlier studies.\nIn the adult studies, six trials compared antitussives with placebo and had variable results. Three trials compared the expectorant guaifenesin with placebo; one indicated significant benefit, whereas the other two did not. One trial found that a mucolytic reduced cough frequency and symptom scores. Two studies examined antihistamine-decongestant combinations and found conflicting results. Four studies compared other combinations of drugs with placebo and indicated some benefit in reducing cough symptoms. Three trials found that antihistamines were no more effective than placebo in relieving cough symptoms.\nIn the child studies, antitussives (data from three studies), antihistamines (data from three studies), antihistamine-decongestants (two studies) and antitussive/bronchodilator combinations (one study) were no more effective than placebo. No studies using expectorants met our inclusion criteria. The results of one trial favoured active treatment with mucolytics over placebo. One trial tested two paediatric cough syrups and both preparations showed a 'satisfactory response' in 46% and 56% of children compared to 21% of children in the placebo group. One new trial indicated that three types of honey were more effective than placebo over a three-day period.\nTwenty-one studies reported adverse effects. There was a wide range across studies, with higher numbers of adverse effects in participants taking preparations containing antihistamines and dextromethorphan.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review have to be interpreted with caution because the number of studies in each category of cough preparations was small. Availability, dosing and duration of use of over-the-counter cough medicines vary significantly in different countries. Many studies were poorly reported making assessment of risk of bias difficult and studies were also very different from each other, making evaluation of overall efficacy difficult. There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough. This should be taken into account when considering prescribing antihistamines and centrally active antitussive agents in children; drugs that are known to have the potential to cause serious harm.\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 undertook a review to determine the effectiveness of over-the-counter cough medicines in reducing cough in children and adults in community settings. We found 29 trials involving 4835 people."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5176 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCommunication is a common element in all medical consultations, affecting a range of outcomes for doctors and patients. The increasing demand for medical students to be trained to communicate effectively has seen the emergence of interpersonal communication skills as core graduate competencies in medical training around the world. Medical schools have adopted a range of approaches to develop and evaluate these competencies.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for medical students that aim to improve interpersonal communication in medical consultations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched five electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and ERIC (Educational Resource Information Centre) in September 2020, with no language, date, or publication status restrictions. We also screened reference lists of relevant articles and contacted authors of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (C-RCTs), and non-randomised controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of interventions delivered to students in undergraduate or graduate-entry medical programmes. We included studies of interventions aiming to improve medical students’ interpersonal communication during medical consultations. Included interventions targeted communication skills associated with empathy, relationship building, gathering information, and explanation and planning, as well as specific communication tasks such as listening, appropriate structure, and question style.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of included studies, and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe found 91 publications relating to 76 separate studies (involving 10,124 students): 55 RCTs, 9 quasi-RCTs, 7 C-RCTs, and 5 quasi-C-RCTs. We performed meta-analysis according to comparison and outcome. Among both effectiveness and comparative effectiveness analyses, we separated outcomes reporting on overall communication skills, empathy, rapport or relationship building, patient perceptions/satisfaction, information gathering, and explanation and planning. Overall communication skills and empathy were further divided as examiner- or simulated patient-assessed. The overall quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, and there was high, unexplained heterogeneity.\nOverall, interventions had positive effects on most outcomes, but generally small effect sizes and evidence quality limit the conclusions that can be drawn. Communication skills interventions in comparison to usual curricula or control may improve both overall communication skills (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.31; 18 studies, 1356 participants; I² = 90%; low-quality evidence) and empathy (SMD 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.05; 6 studies, 831 participants; I² = 86%; low-quality evidence) when assessed by experts, but not by simulated patients. Students’ skills in information gathering probably also improve with educational intervention (SMD 1.07, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.54; 5 studies, 405 participants; I² = 78%; moderate-quality evidence), but there may be little to no effect on students' rapport (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.51; 9 studies, 834 participants; I² = 81%; low-quality evidence), and effects on information giving skills are uncertain (very low-quality evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether experiential interventions improve overall communication skills in comparison to didactic approaches (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.19; 4 studies, 1578 participants; I² = 4%; very low-quality evidence). Electronic learning approaches may have little to no effect on students’ empathy scores (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.43; 3 studies, 421 participants; I² = 82%; low-quality evidence) or on rapport (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.38; 3 studies, 176 participants; I² = 19%; moderate-quality evidence) compared to face-to-face approaches. There may be small negative effects of electronic interventions on information giving skills (low-quality evidence), and effects on information gathering skills are uncertain (very low-quality evidence).\nPersonalised/specific feedback probably improves overall communication skills to a small degree in comparison to generic or no feedback (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87; 6 studies, 502 participants; I² = 56%; moderate-quality evidence). There may be small positive effects of personalised feedback on empathy and information gathering skills (low quality), but effects on rapport are uncertain (very low quality), and we found no evidence on information giving skills.\nWe are uncertain whether role-play with simulated patients outperforms peer role-play in improving students’ overall communication skills (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.67; 4 studies, 637 participants; I² = 87%; very low-quality evidence). There may be little to no difference between effects of simulated patient and peer role-play on students' empathy (low-quality evidence) with no evidence on other outcomes for this comparison.\nDescriptive syntheses of results that could not be included in meta-analyses across outcomes and comparisons were mixed, as were effects of different interventions and comparisons on specific communication skills assessed by the included trials. Quality of evidence was downgraded due to methodological limitations across several risk of bias domains, high unexplained heterogeneity, and imprecision of results.\nIn general, results remain consistent in sensitivity analysis based on risk of bias and adjustment for clustering. No adverse effects were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review represents a substantial body of evidence from which to draw, but further research is needed to strengthen the quality of the evidence base, to consider the long-term effects of interventions on students’ behaviour as they progress through training and into practice, and to assess effects of interventions on patient outcomes. Efforts to standardise assessment and evaluation of interpersonal skills will strengthen future research efforts.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of our review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Comparing interpersonal programmes against the usual educational programmes or being on a waiting list for an interpersonal programme showed that these programmes:\n· may slightly improve students' overall communication skills (evidence from 18 studies, with 1356 students) and empathy (6 studies; 831 students);\n· probably improve skills in gathering information about the patient's views (5 studies, 405 students); but\n· may have little to no effect on rapport skills (9 studies, 834 students).\nWe are uncertain about how the interpersonal programmes affected skills in giving information (5 studies, 659 students).\nWe are uncertain how online or self-taught programmes affected students' overall communication skills (4 studies, 1578 students) or skills in gathering information (1 study, 164 students) compared with face-to-face teaching.\nOnline or self-directed programmes compared with face-to-face teaching:\n· may have little to no effect on students' empathy skills (3 studies, 421 students);\n· probably have little to no effect on rapport skills (3 studies, 176 students); but\n· may slightly reduce skills in giving information (1 study, 122 students).\nProgrammes that give students personalised or tailored feedback compared with those that involve general or no feedback:\n· probably slightly improved overall communication skills (6 studies, 502 students); and\n· may slightly improve empathy skills (1 study, 66 students) and skills in gathering information (1 study, 48 students).\nWe are uncertain how programmes with personalised or tailored feedback affected rapport skills (1 study, 190 students). No studies reported results for effects on skills in giving information.\nWe are uncertain whether programmes involving role-play with people acting as patients improved students' overall communication skills (4 studies, 637 students) compared with programmes involving role-play with peers. Role-play with people acting as patients may slightly improve empathy skills (2 studies, 213 students). No studies reported results for how role-play with people acting as patients affected skills in rapport or gathering and giving of information.\nNo studies reported any unwanted effects for any of the education programmes assessed."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5177 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany patients with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are treated with antibiotics. However, the value of antibiotics remains uncertain, as systematic reviews and clinical trials have shown conflicting results.\nObjectives\nTo assess effects of antibiotics on treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (primary outcome) for management of acute COPD exacerbations, as well as their effects on other patient-important outcomes (mortality, adverse events, length of hospital stay, time to next exacerbation).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and other electronically available databases up to 26 September 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought to find randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with acute COPD exacerbations comparing antibiotic therapy and placebo and providing follow-up of at least seven days.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened references and extracted data from trial reports. We kept the three groups of outpatients, inpatients, and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) separate for benefit outcomes and mortality because we considered them to be clinically too different to be summarised as a single group. We considered outpatients to have a mild to moderate exacerbation, inpatients to have a severe exacerbation, and ICU patients to have a very severe exacerbation. When authors of primary studies did not report outcomes or study details, we contacted them to request missing data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failure, Peto odds ratios (ORs) for rare events (mortality and adverse events), and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes using random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation.\nMain results\nWe included 19 trials with 2663 participants (11 with outpatients, seven with inpatients, and one with ICU patients).\nFor outpatients (with mild to moderate exacerbations), evidence of low quality suggests that currently available antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk for treatment failure between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (RR 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.94; I² = 31%; in absolute terms, reduction in treatment failures from 295 to 212 per 1000 treated participants, 95% CI 165 to 277). Studies providing older antibiotics not in use anymore yielded an RR of 0.69 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; I² = 31%). Evidence of low quality from one trial in outpatients suggested no effects of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30). One trial reported no effects of antibiotics on re-exacerbations between two and six weeks after treatment initiation. Only one trial (N = 35) reported health-related quality of life but did not show a statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups.\nEvidence of moderate quality does not show that currently used antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure among inpatients with severe exacerbations (i.e. for inpatients excluding ICU patients) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.12; I² = 50%), but trial results remain uncertain. In turn, the effect was statistically significant when trials included older antibiotics no longer in clinical use (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00; I² = 39%). Evidence of moderate quality from two trials including inpatients shows no beneficial effects of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 2.48, 95% CI 0.94 to 6.55). Length of hospital stay (in days) was similar in antibiotic and placebo groups.\nThe only trial with 93 patients admitted to the ICU showed a large and statistically significant effect on treatment failure (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.45; moderate-quality evidence; in absolute terms, reduction in treatment failures from 565 to 107 per 1000 treated participants, 95% CI 45 to 254). Results of this trial show a statistically significant effect on mortality (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.72; moderate-quality evidence) and on length of hospital stay (MD -9.60 days, 95% CI -12.84 to -6.36; low-quality evidence).\nEvidence of moderate quality gathered from trials conducted in all settings shows no statistically significant effect on overall incidence of adverse events (Peto OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.63; moderate-quality evidence) nor on diarrhoea (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.07; moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nResearchers have found that antibiotics have some effect on inpatients and outpatients, but these effects are small, and they are inconsistent for some outcomes (treatment failure) and absent for other outcomes (mortality, length of hospital stay). Analyses show a strong beneficial effect of antibiotics among ICU patients. Few data are available on the effects of antibiotics on health-related quality of life or on other patient-reported symptoms, and data show no statistically significant increase in the risk of adverse events with antibiotics compared to placebo. These inconsistent effects call for research into clinical signs and biomarkers that can help identify patients who would benefit from antibiotics, while sparing antibiotics for patients who are unlikely to experience benefit and for whom downsides of antibiotics (side effects, costs, and multi-resistance) should be avoided.\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": "Evidence gathered for this review is current to September 2018. We found 19 randomised studies that compared antibiotics versus placebo in a total of 2663 COPD patients with a wide range of flare-up severity."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5178 | [
{
"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: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Evidence quality certainty ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor reporting of study methods and inconsistency."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5179 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSeasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with typical signs and symptoms including itching, redness, and tearing. The clinical signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis are mediated by the release of histamine by mast cells. Histamine antagonists (also called antihistamines) inhibit the action of histamine by blocking histamine H1 receptors, antagonising the vasoconstrictor, and to a lesser extent, the vasodilator effects of histamine. Mast cell stabilisers inhibit degranulation and consequently the release of histamine by interrupting the normal chain of intracellular signals.\n\nTopical treatments include eye drops with antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combinations of the previous treatments, and corticosteroids. Standard treatment is based on topical antihistamines alone or topical mast cell stabilisers alone or a combination of treatments. There is clinical uncertainty about the relative efficacy and safety of topical treatment.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, for use in treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 July 2014. We also searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trial reports for details of further relevant publications.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, with placebo, no treatment or to any other antihistamine or mast cell stabiliser, or both, that examined people with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis, or both. The primary outcome was any participant-reported evaluation (by questionnaire) of severity of four main ocular symptoms: itching, irritation, watering eye (tearing), and photophobia (dislike of light), both separately and, if possible, by an overall symptom score. We considered any follow-up time between one week and one year.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among review authors and the involvement of a third review author. We followed standard methodological approaches used by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified 30 trials with a total of 4344 participants randomised, with 17 different drugs or treatment comparisons. The following antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers were evaluated in at least one RCT: nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate, olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine, emedastine, levocabastine (or levocabastine), mequitazine, bepotastine besilate, combination of antazoline and tetryzoline, combination of levocabastine and pemirolast potassium. The most common comparison was azelastine versus placebo (nine studies).\nWe observed a large variability in reporting outcomes. The quality of the studies and reporting was variable, but overall the risk of bias was low. Trials evaluated only short-term effects, with a range of treatment of one to eight weeks. Meta-analysis was only possible in one comparison (olopatadine versus ketotifen). There was some evidence to support that topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo. There were no reported serious adverse events related to the use of topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt seems that all reported topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo in the short term. However, there is no long-term data on their efficacy. Direct comparisons of different antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers need to be interpreted with caution. Overall, topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers appear to be safe and well tolerated. We observed a large variability in outcomes reported. Poor quality of reporting challenged the synthesis of evidence.\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 July 2014. Among the 30 studies reviewed there were 17 different comparisons, including 4344 participants ranging in age between 4 and 85 years. The duration of treatment ranged from one to eight weeks. Ten out of 30 studies were funded by the drug manufacturer (8 totally and 2 partially funded); 20 studies did not report any source of funding. There was inconsistency in the way the effect of treatment was measured and reported. Overall risk of bias was low."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5180 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCurrently, with stroke burden increasing, there is a need to explore therapeutic options that ameliorate the acute insult. There is substantial evidence of a neuroprotective effect of marine-derived n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in animal models of stroke, leading to a better functional outcome.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of administration of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs on functional outcomes and dependence in people with stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (last searched 31 May 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1948 to 31 May 2021), Embase Ovid (from 1980 to 31 May 2021), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; from 1982 to 31 May 2021), Science Citation Index Expanded ‒ Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science – Web of Science (CPCI-S), and BIOSIS Citation Index. We also searched ongoing trial registers, reference lists, relevant systematic reviews, and used the Science Citation Index Reference Search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing marine-derived n-3 PUFAs to placebo or open control (no placebo) in people with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), or both.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional information on stroke/TIA participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis or narrative synthesis, as appropriate. The primary outcome was efficacy (functional outcome) assessed using a validated scale, for example, the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) dichotomised into poor or good clinical outcome, the Barthel Index (higher score is better; scale from 0 to 100), or the Rivermead Mobility Index (higher score is better; scale from 0 to 15). Our secondary outcomes were vascular-related death, recurrent events, incidence of other type of stroke, adverse events, quality of life, and mood.\nMain results\nWe included 30 RCTs; nine of them provided outcome data (3339 participants). Only one study included participants in the acute phase of stroke (haemorrhagic). Doses of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs ranged from 400 mg/day to 3300 mg/day. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most trials, with a higher risk of bias in smaller studies. We assessed results separately for short (up to three months) and longer (more than three months) follow-up studies.\nShort follow-up (up to three months)\nFunctional outcome was reported in only one pilot study as poor clinical outcome assessed with the GOSE (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.68, P = 0.52; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Mood (assessed with the GHQ-30, lower score better) was reported by only one study and favoured control (mean difference (MD) 1.41, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.75, P = 0.04; 102 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe found no evidence of an effect of the intervention for the remainder of the secondary outcomes: vascular-related death (two studies, not pooled due to differences in population, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.00, P = 0.50, and RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.72, P = 0.49; 142 participants; low-certainty evidence); recurrent events (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.84, P = 0.57; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence); incidence of other type of stroke (two studies, not pooled due to different type of index stroke, RR 6.11, 95% CI 0.33 to 111.71, P = 0.22, and RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.58, P = 0.32; 58 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and quality of life (physical component, MD −2.31, 95% CI −4.81 to 0.19, P = 0.07, and mental component, MD −2.16, 95% CI −5.91 to 1.59, P = 0.26; 1 study; 102 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events were reported by two studies (57 participants; very low-certainty evidence), one trial reporting extracranial haemorrhage (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.73, P = 0.16) and the other one reporting bleeding complications (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.35, P = 0.47).\nLonger follow-up (more than three months)\nOne small trial assessed functional outcome with both the Barthel Index for activities of daily living (MD 7.09, 95% CI −5.16 to 19.34, P = 0.26), and the Rivermead Mobility Index for mobility (MD 1.30, 95% CI −1.31 to 3.91, P = 0.33) (52 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We carried out meta-analysis for vascular-related death (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35, P = 0.86; 5 studies; 2237 participants; low-certainty evidence) and fatal recurrent events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.55, P = 0.37; 3 studies; 1819 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe found no evidence of an effect of the intervention for mood (MD 1.00, 95% CI −2.07 to 4.07, P = 0.61; 1 study; 14 participants; low-certainty evidence). Incidence of other type of stroke and quality of life were not reported.\nAdverse events (all combined) were reported by only one study (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.58, P = 0.82; 1455 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain of the effect of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs therapy on functional outcomes and dependence after stroke as there is insufficient high-certainty evidence. More well-designed RCTs are needed, specifically in acute stroke, to determine the efficacy and safety of the intervention.\nStudies assessing functional outcome might consider starting the intervention as early as possible after the event, as well as using standardised, clinically relevant measures for functional outcomes, such as the modified Rankin Scale. Optimal doses remain to be determined; delivery forms (type of lipid carriers) and mode of administration (ingestion or injection) also need further consideration.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In both the short and longer follow-up studies the certainty of the evidence was very low or low. The frequency of other type of stroke and quality of life were not reported in the longer follow-up."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5181 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHealth services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants.\nThis review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of ‘working in partnership’ interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE ‘Summary of findings’ tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3).\nThe effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table.\nWe are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use.\nOverall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is not enough robust evidence to determine the effects of consumers and providers working in partnership to plan, deliver or evaluate health services.\nThis review highlights the need for well-designed studies with a clear focus on evaluating the effects of partnerships for promoting person-centred care in health services. This area of research may also benefit from studies that investigate why certain partnerships between consumers and healthcare providers may be more successful than others, and an accompanying qualitative evidence synthesis addressing this aspect is forthcoming."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5182 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEndometriosis is a common gynaecological condition which affects many women of reproductive age worldwide and is a major cause of pain and infertility. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is widely used to treat pain occurring as a result of endometriosis, although the evidence for its efficacy is limited.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptive preparations in the treatment of painful symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of laparoscopically proven endometriosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following from inception to 19 October 2017: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We also handsearched reference lists of relevant trials and systematic reviews retrieved by the search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) of the use of COCPs in the treatment of women of reproductive age with symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of endometriosis that had been made visually at a surgical procedure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. One review author was an expert in the content matter. We contacted study authors for additional information. The primary outcome was self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment.\nMain results\nFive trials (612 women) met the inclusion criteria. Only three trials (404 women) provided data that were suitable for analysis.\nCombined oral contraceptive pill versus placebo\nTwo trials compared COCP with a placebo. These studies were at high risk of bias. For GRADE outcomes (self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment), the quality of the evidence very low. Evidence was downgraded for imprecision as it was based on a single, small trial and for the visual analogue scale data there were wide confidence intervals (CIs). There appeared to have been substantial involvement of the pharmaceutical company funding the trials.\nTreatment with the COCP was associated with an improvement in self-reported pain at the end of treatment as evidenced by a lower score on the Dysmenorrhoea verbal rating scale (scale 0 to 3) compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -1.30 points, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.76; 1 RCT, 96 women; very low quality evidence), a lower score on the Dysmenorrhoea visual analogue scale (no details of scale) compared with placebo (MD -23.68 points, 95% CI -28.75 to -18.62, 2 RCTs, 327 women; very low quality evidence) and a reduction in menstrual pain from baseline to the end of treatment (MD 2.10 points, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.82; 1 RCT, 169 women; very low quality evidence).\nCombined oral contraceptive pill versus medical therapies\nOne underpowered trial compared the COCP with another medical treatment (goserelin). The study was at high risk of bias; the trial was unblinded and there was insufficient detail to judge allocation concealment and randomisation. For GRADE outcomes (self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment), the quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low.\nAt the end of treatment, the women in the goserelin group were amenorrhoeic and therefore no comparisons could be made between the groups for the primary outcome. At six months' follow-up, there was no clear evidence of a difference between women treated with the COCP and women treated with goserelin for measures of dysmenorrhoea on a visual analogue scale (scale 1 to 10) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.08; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence) or a verbal rating scale (scale 0 to 3) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.79; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence). At six months' follow-up, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the COCP and goserelin groups for reporting complete absence of pain as measured by the visual analogue scale (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.43; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence) or the verbal rating scale (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 1 RCT, 49 women; low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the limited evidence from two trials at high risk of bias and limited data for the prespecified outcomes for this review, there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the COCP compared with placebo and the findings cannot be generalised.\nBased on the limited evidence from one small trial that was at high risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the COCP compared with other medical treatments. Only one comparison was possible, with the medical intervention being goserelin, and the findings cannot be generalised.\nFurther research is needed to fully evaluate the role of COCPs in managing pain-related symptoms associated with endometriosis. There are other formulations of the combined hormonal contraception such as the transdermal patch, vaginal ring or combined injectable contraceptives which this review did not cover but should be considered in future updates.\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": "Endometriosis is a common women's healthcare condition where the endometrium (lining of the womb) grows at sites outside the womb, such as the ovaries (which produce eggs). Endometriosis is commonly found in women with painful periods, pain with sexual intercourse, pelvic pain and infertility (difficulty in having a baby). Hormonal treatments, including COCPs and medicines called gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (for example, goserelin) are used to relieve the pain symptoms associated with endometriosis. However, many of the hormonal treatments have side effects which limit their acceptability and duration of use."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5183 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 1, 2003, and previously updated in 2009, 2012 and 2014. Chronic pain, defined as pain that recurs or persists for more than three months, is common in childhood. Chronic pain can affect nearly every aspect of daily life and is associated with disability, anxiety, and depressive symptoms.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this review was to update the published evidence on the efficacy of psychological treatments for chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents.\nThe primary objective of this updated review was to determine any effect of psychological therapy on the clinical outcomes of pain intensity and disability for chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents compared with active treatment, waiting-list, or treatment-as-usual care.\nThe secondary objective was to examine the impact of psychological therapies on children's depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms, and determine adverse events.\nSearch methods\nSearches were undertaken of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, Embase, and PsycINFO databases. We searched for further RCTs in the references of all identified studies, meta-analyses, and reviews, and trial registry databases. The most recent search was conducted in May 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs with at least 10 participants in each arm post-treatment comparing psychological therapies with active treatment, treatment-as-usual, or waiting-list control for children or adolescents with recurrent or chronic pain were eligible for inclusion. We excluded trials conducted remotely via the Internet.\nData collection and analysis\nWe analysed included studies and we assessed quality of outcomes. We combined all treatments into one class named 'psychological treatments'. We separated the trials by the number of participants that were included in each arm; trials with > 20 participants per arm versus trials with < 20 participants per arm. We split pain conditions into headache and mixed chronic pain conditions. We assessed the impact of both conditions on four outcomes: pain, disability, depression, and anxiety. We extracted data at two time points; post-treatment (immediately or the earliest data available following end of treatment) and at follow-up (between three and 12 months post-treatment).\nMain results\nWe identified 10 new studies (an additional 869 participants) in the updated search. The review thus included a total of 47 studies, with 2884 children and adolescents completing treatment (mean age 12.65 years, SD 2.21 years). Twenty-three studies addressed treatments for headache (including migraine); 10 for abdominal pain; two studies treated participants with either a primary diagnosis of abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome, two studies treated adolescents with fibromyalgia, two studies included adolescents with temporomandibular disorders, three were for the treatment of pain associated with sickle cell disease, and two studies treated adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease. Finally, three studies included adolescents with mixed pain conditions. Overall, we judged the included studies to be at unclear or high risk of bias.\nChildren with headache pain\nWe found that psychological therapies reduced pain frequency post-treatment for children and adolescents with headaches (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 3.30, P < 0.01, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 2.86), but these effects were not maintained at follow-up. We did not find a beneficial effect of psychological therapies on reducing disability in young people post-treatment (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.03), but we did find a beneficial effect in a small number of studies at follow-up (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.15). We found no beneficial effect of psychological interventions on depression or anxiety symptoms.\nChildren with mixed pain conditions\nWe found that psychological therapies reduced pain intensity post-treatment for children and adolescents with mixed pain conditions (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.19, P < 0.01), but these effects were not maintained at follow-up. We did find beneficial effects of psychological therapies on reducing disability for young people with mixed pain conditions post-treatment (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.15) and at follow-up (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.06). We found no beneficial effect of psychological interventions on depression symptoms. In contrast, we found a beneficial effect on anxiety at post-treatment in children with mixed pain conditions (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.03), but this was not maintained at follow-up.\nAcross all pain conditions, we found that adverse events were reported in seven trials, of which two studies reported adverse events that were study-related.\nQuality of evidence\nWe found the quality of evidence for all outcomes to be low or very low, mostly downgraded for unexplained heterogeneity, limitations in study design, imprecise and sparse data, or suspicion of publication bias. This means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect, or we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; or the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPsychological treatments delivered predominantly face-to-face might be effective for reducing pain outcomes for children and adolescents with headache or other chronic pain conditions post-treatment. However, there were no effects at follow-up. Psychological therapies were also beneficial for reducing disability in children with mixed chronic pain conditions at post-treatment and follow-up, and for children with headache at follow-up. We found no beneficial effect of therapies for improving depression or anxiety. The conclusions of this update replicate and add to those of a previous version of the review which found that psychological therapies were effective in reducing pain frequency/intensity for children with headache and mixed chronic pain conditions post-treatment.\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": "We judged all outcomes to be low or very low-quality, meaning our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect or we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; or the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5184 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIntimate partner abuse is common worldwide, damaging the short- and long-term physical, mental, and emotional health of survivors and children. Advocacy may contribute to reducing abuse, empowering women to improve their situation by providing informal counselling and support for safety planning and increasing access to different services. Advocacy may be a stand-alone service, accepting referrals from healthcare providers, or part of a multi-component (and possibly multi-agency) intervention provided by service staff or others.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of advocacy interventions within or outside healthcare settings in women who have experienced intimate partner abuse.\nSearch methods\nIn April 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases. We also searched WHO ICTRP, mRCT, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN), and examined relevant websites and reference lists with forward citation tracking of included studies. For the original review we handsearched six key journals. We also contacted first authors of eligible papers and experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing advocacy interventions for women with experience of intimate partner abuse versus no intervention or usual care (if advocacy was minimal and fewer than 20% of women received it).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We contacted authors for missing information needed to calculate statistics for the review and looked for adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 13 trials involving 2141 participants aged 15 to 65 years, frequently having low socioeconomic status.\nThe studies were quite heterogeneous in terms of methodology, study processes and design, including with regard to the duration of follow-up (postintervention to three years), although this was not associated with differences in effect. The studies also had considerable clinical heterogeneity in relation to staff delivering advocacy; setting (community, shelter, antenatal, healthcare); advocacy intensity (from 30 minutes to 80 hours); and abuse severity. Three trials evaluated advocacy within multi-component interventions. Eleven measured some form of abuse (eight scales), six assessed quality of life (three scales), and six measured depression (three scales). Countries and ethnic groups varied (one or more minority ethnic groups in the USA or UK, and local populations in Hong Kong and Peru). Setting was associated with intensity and duration of advocacy.\nRisk of bias was high in five studies, moderate in five, and low in three. The quality of evidence (considering multiple factors such as risk of bias, study size, missing data) was moderate to low for brief advocacy and very low for intensive advocacy.\nIncidence of abuse\nPhysical abuse\nModerate quality pooled data from two healthcare studies (moderate risk of bias) and one community study (low risk of bias), all with 12-month follow-up data, showed no effect on physical abuse for brief (< 12 hours) advocacy interventions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.17 to 0.16; n = 558). One antenatal study (low risk of bias) showed an association between brief advocacy and reduced minor physical abuse at one year (mean difference (MD) change - 1.00, 95% CI - 1.82 to - 0.18; n = 110). An antenatal, multi-component study showed a greater likelihood of physical abuse ending (odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.75) immediately after advocacy (number needed to treat (NNT) = 8); we cannot exclude impact from other components.\nLow to very low quality evidence from two intensive advocacy trials (12 hours plus duration) showed reduced severe physical abuse in women leaving a shelter at 24 months (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.77; NNT = 8), but not at 12 or 36 months.\nSexual abuse\nMeta-analysis of two studies (n = 239) showed no effect of advocacy on sexual abuse (SMD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.37 to 0.14), agreeing with the change score (MD - 0.07, 95% CI - 0.30 to 0.16) from a third study and the OR (0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.12) from a fourth antenatal, multi-component study.\nEmotional abuse\nOne study in antenatal care, rated at low risk of bias, showed reduced emotional abuse at ≤ 12-month follow-up (MD (change score) - 4.24, 95% CI - 6.42 to - 2.06; n = 110).\nPsychosocial health\nQuality of life\nMeta-analysis of two studies (high risk of bias) showed intensive advocacy slightly improved overall quality of life of women recruited from shelters (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.46; n = 343) at 12-month follow-up, with greater improvement in perceived physical quality of life from a primary care study (high risk of bias; MD 4.90, 95% CI 0.98 to 8.82) immediately postintervention.\nDepression\nMeta-analysis of two studies in healthcare settings, one at high risk of bias and one at moderate risk, showed that fewer women developed depression (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.65; n = 149; NNT = 4) with brief advocacy. One study at high risk of bias reported a slight reduction in depression in pregnant women immediately after the intervention (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.29; n = 103; NNT = 8).\nThere was no evidence that intensive advocacy reduced depression at ≤ 12-month follow-up (MD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.33 to 0.05; 3 studies; n = 446) or at two years (SMD − 0.12, 95% CI − 0.36 to 0.12; 1 study; n = 265).\nAdverse effects\nTwo women died, one who was murdered by her partner and one who committed suicide. No evidence links either death to study participation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults suggest some benefits from advocacy. However, most studies were underpowered. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity largely precluded pooling of trials. Therefore, there is uncertainty about the magnitude of benefit, the impact of abuse severity, and the setting.\nBased on the evidence reviewed, intensive advocacy may improve short-term quality of life and reduce physical abuse one to two years after the intervention for women recruited from domestic violence shelters or refuges. Brief advocacy may provide small short-term mental health benefits and reduce abuse, particularly in pregnant women and for less severe abuse.\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": "Partner abuse (domestic violence) is common worldwide. It includes physical, emotional, and sexual abuse; threats; withholding money; causing injury; and long-lasting physical and emotional health problems. Advocacy (active support by trained people) may help women make safety plans, deal with abuse, and access community resources.\nEvidence on the effects of advocacy will help service planning and provision."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5185 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBranched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) play a vital role in neonatal nutrition. Optimal BCAA supplementation might improve neonatal nutrient storage, leading to better physical and neurological development and other outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of BCAA supplementation on physical growth and neurological development in term and preterm neonates. We planned to make the following comparisons: parenteral nutrition with and without BCAA supplementation; enteral BCAA supplementation versus no supplementation; and any type of supplementation including enteral, parenteral and both ways versus no supplementation.\nTo investigate the supplementation effectiveness for different dosages assessed in the eligible trials.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted comprehensive searches using Cochrane Neonatal's standard search strategies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL (up to July 2016). We updated the search with CENTRAL (2019, Issue 8), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL (up to August 2019). We also searched clinical trials registries and reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include individual and cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing BCAA supplementation versus placebo or no supplementation in term and preterm neonates. We excluded trials presented only as abstracts and cross-over trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of all potential studies identified from the search strategy. We planned to extract data using a pilot-tested standard data extraction form and assess risk of bias of the included studies following the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to analyse treatment effects and report their effect estimates as per dichotomous or continuous data with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to conduct subgroup analysis to investigate heterogeneity, and perform sensitivity analysis where possible. We planned to use fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine data wherever appropriate. We planned to assess evidence quality using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any potentially eligible studies that met the inclusion criteria in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no trial data to support or refute the idea that BCAA supplementation affects physical and neurological development and other outcomes in term and preterm neonates.\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 did not find any eligible randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of BCAA supplementation for term and preterm neonates. The evidence is up to date as of August 2019."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5186 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDental caries (tooth decay) is one of the commonest diseases which afflicts mankind, and has been estimated to affect up to 80% of people in high-income countries. Caries adversely affects and progressively destroys the tissues of the tooth, including the dental pulp (nerve), leaving teeth unsightly, weakened and with impaired function. The treatment of lesions of dental caries, which are progressing through dentine and have caused the formation of a cavity, involves the provision of dental restorations (fillings). This review updates the previous version published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of adhesive bonding on the in-service performance and longevity of dental amalgam restorations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2016). We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) (both to 21 January 2016) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing adhesively bonded versus traditional non-bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention, in adults with permanent molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II amalgam restorations only.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed the risk of bias in the included study.\nMain results\nOne trial with 31 patients who received 113 restorations was included. At two years, 50 out of 53 restorations in the non-bonded group survived, and 55 of 60 bonded restorations survived with five unaccounted for at follow-up. Post-insertion sensitivity was not significantly different (P > 0.05) at baseline or two-year follow-up. No fractures of tooth tissue were reported and there was no significant difference between the groups or matched pairs of restorations in their marginal adaptation (P > 0.05).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence to either claim or refute a difference in survival between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations. This review only found one under-reported trial. This trial did not find any significant difference in the in-service performance of moderately sized adhesively bonded amalgam restorations, in terms of their survival rate and marginal integrity, in comparison to non-bonded amalgam restorations over a two-year period. In view of the lack of evidence on the additional benefit of adhesively bonding amalgam in comparison with non-bonded amalgam, it is important that clinicians are mindful of the additional costs that may be incurred.\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": "There was only one included study and it provides insufficient evidence that adhesively bonded amalgam restorations perform any better than non-adhesively bonded amalgam restoration when followed up for two years.\nThe quality of the evidence is low. In addition, the university dental clinic setting may mean that the participants are not representative of the general population and the treatment offered not typical of that in general dental practice so the results may not be generalisable."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5187 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUndifferentiated acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are a large and heterogeneous group of infections not clearly restricted to one specific part of the upper respiratory tract, which last for up to seven days. They are more common in pre-school children in low-income countries and are responsible for 75% of the total amount of prescribed antibiotics in high-income countries. One possible rationale for prescribing antibiotics is the wish to prevent bacterial complications.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics in preventing bacterial complications in children aged two months to 59 months with undifferentiated ARIs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1950 to August week 1, 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to August 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotic prescriptions with placebo or no treatment in children aged two months to 59 months with an undifferentiated ARI for up to seven days.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe identified four trials involving 1314 children. Three trials investigated the use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid to prevent otitis and one investigated ampicillin to prevent pneumonia.\nThe use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid compared to placebo to prevent otitis showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.11, three trials, 414 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). Methods of random sequence generation and allocation concealment were not clearly stated in two trials. Performance, detection and reporting bias could not be ruled out in three trials.\nAmpicillin compared to supportive care (continuation of breastfeeding, clearing of the nose and paracetamol for fever control) to prevent pneumonia showed a RR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49, one trial, 889 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). The trial was non-blinded. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment methods were not clearly stated, so the possibility of reporting bias could not be ruled out.\nHarm outcomes could not be analysed as they were expressed only in percentages.\nWe found no studies assessing mastoiditis, quinsy, abscess, meningitis, hospital admission or death.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence for antibiotic use as a means of reducing the risk of otitis or pneumonia in children up to five years of age with undifferentiated ARIs. Further high-quality research is needed to provide more definitive evidence of the effectiveness of antibiotics in this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Studies characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included four trials (1314 children) in this review. Three trials (414 children, during seven days) investigated the use of an antibiotic (amoxicillin/clavulanic acid) to prevent otitis media. One trial (889 children, during two weeks) investigated the use of another antibiotic (ampicillin) to prevent pneumonia. Only one trial addressed harms. However, we could not analyse the data as it was expressed in percentages rather then absolute terms. No studies assessed other severe complications (mastoiditis, quinsy, abscess, meningitis), hospital admission or death."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5189 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2015.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease.\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 21 September 2016. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials, including parallel group, cross-over or quasi-randomised designs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE principles and a Summary of findings table was created.\nMain results\nWe included six new studies (624 participants) for this update, which now includes a total of 23 trials that randomised a total of 2890 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Participants had an acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or heart failure. A number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias, in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported.\nNo evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in clinical primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: total mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1505; studies = 11/comparisons = 13; very low quality evidence), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; participants = 2255; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence), or health-related quality of life up to 24 months (not estimable). Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence). However, there was evidence of marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08; participants = 2615; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence) by home-based participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis update supports previous conclusions that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme may reflect local availability and consider the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in the included short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term and need to consider adequately powered non-inferiority or equivalence study designs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study funding sources\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Sixteen studies reported sources of funding; seven did not. No study reported funding from an agency with commercial interest in the results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5190 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChild sexual abuse is a significant global problem in both magnitude and sequelae. The most widely used primary prevention strategy has been the provision of school-based education programmes. Although programmes have been taught in schools since the 1980s, their effectiveness requires ongoing scrutiny.\nObjectives\nTo systematically assess evidence of the effectiveness of school-based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse. Specifically, to assess whether: programmes are effective in improving students' protective behaviours and knowledge about sexual abuse prevention; behaviours and skills are retained over time; and participation results in disclosures of sexual abuse, produces harms, or both.\nSearch methods\nIn September 2014, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and 11 other databases. We also searched two trials registers and screened the reference lists of previous reviews for additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs of school-based education interventions for the prevention of child sexual abuse compared with another intervention or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We summarised data for six outcomes: protective behaviours; knowledge of sexual abuse or sexual abuse prevention concepts; retention of protective behaviours over time; retention of knowledge over time; harm; and disclosures of sexual abuse.\nMain results\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review that included 15 trials (up to August 2006). We identified 10 additional trials for the period to September 2014. We excluded one trial from the original review. Therefore, this update includes a total of 24 trials (5802 participants). We conducted several meta-analyses. More than half of the trials in each meta-analysis contained unit of analysis errors.\n1. Meta-analysis of two trials (n = 102) evaluating protective behaviours favoured intervention (odds ratio (OR) 5.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98 to 16.51), with borderline low to moderate heterogeneity (Chi² = 1.37, df = 1, P value = 0.24, I² = 27%, Tau² = 0.16). The results did not change when we made adjustments using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to correct errors made in studies where data were analysed without accounting for the clustering of students in classes or schools.\n2. Meta-analysis of 18 trials (n = 4657) evaluating questionnaire-based knowledge favoured intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.78), but there was substantial heterogeneity (Chi² = 104.76, df = 17, P value < 0.00001, I² = 84%, Tau² = 0.10). The results did not change when adjusted for clustering (ICC: 0.1 SMD 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.81; ICC: 0.2 SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.77).\n3. Meta-analysis of 11 trials (n =1688) evaluating vignette-based knowledge favoured intervention (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.65), but there was substantial heterogeneity (Chi² = 34.25, df = 10, P value < 0.0002, I² = 71%, Tau² = 0.08). The results did not change when adjusted for clustering (ICC: 0.1 SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.74; ICC: 0.2 SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89).\n4. We included four trials in the meta-analysis for retention of knowledge over time. The effect of intervention seemed to persist beyond the immediate assessment (SMD 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.17; I² = 84%, Tau² = 0.13, P value = 0.0003; n = 956) to six months (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87; I² = 25%; Tau² = 0.01, P value = 0.26; n = 929). The results did not change when adjustments were made using ICCs.\n5. We included three studies in the meta-analysis for adverse effects (harm) manifesting as child anxiety or fear. The results showed no increase or decrease in anxiety or fear in intervention participants (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.07; n = 795) and there was no heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P value = 0.79; n=795). The results did not change when adjustments were made using ICCs.\n6. We included three studies (n = 1788) in the meta-analysis for disclosure of previous or current sexual abuse. The results favoured intervention (OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 11.24), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P value = 0.84). However, adjusting for the effect of clustering had the effect of widening the confidence intervals around the OR (ICC: 0.1 OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 12.33; ICC: 0.2 OR 2.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 12.61).\nInsufficient information was provided in the included studies to conduct planned subgroup analyses and there were insufficient studies to conduct meaningful analyses.\nThe quality of evidence for all outcomes included in the meta-analyses was moderate owing to unclear risk of selection bias across most studies, high or unclear risk of detection bias across over half of included studies, and high or unclear risk of attrition bias across most studies. The results should be interpreted cautiously.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe studies included in this review show evidence of improvements in protective behaviours and knowledge among children exposed to school-based programmes, regardless of the type of programme. The results might have differed had the true ICCs or cluster-adjusted results been available. There is evidence that children's knowledge does not deteriorate over time, although this requires further research with longer-term follow-up. Programme participation does not generate increased or decreased child anxiety or fear, however there is a need for ongoing monitoring of both positive and negative short- and long-term effects. The results show that programme participation may increase the odds of disclosure, however there is a need for more programme evaluations to routinely collect such data. Further investigation of the moderators of programme effects is required along with longitudinal or data linkage studies that can assess actual prevention of child sexual abuse.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review included 24 studies, conducted with a total of 5802 participants in primary (elementary) and secondary (high) schools in the United States, Canada, China, Germany, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey. The duration of interventions ranged from a single 45-minute session to eight 20-minute sessions on consecutive days. Although a wide range of programmes were used, there were many common elements, including the teaching of safety rules, body ownership, private parts of the body, distinguishing types of touches and types of secrets, and who to tell. Programme delivery formats included film, video or DVD, theatrical plays, and multimedia presentations. Other resources used included songs, puppets, comics, and colouring books. Teaching methods used in delivery included rehearsal, practice, role-play, discussion, and feedback."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5191 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2014. Acute postoperative pain is one of the most disturbing complaints in open heart surgery, and is associated with a risk of negative consequences. Several trials investigated the effects of psychological interventions to reduce acute postoperative pain and improve the course of physical and psychological recovery of participants undergoing open heart surgery.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy of psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention control in adults undergoing open heart surgery for pain, pain medication, psychological distress, mobility, and time to extubation.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for eligible studies up to February 2017. We used the 'related articles' and 'cited by' options of eligible studies to identify additional relevant studies. We checked lists of references of relevant articles and previous reviews. We searched the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text Database, ClinicalTrials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify any unpublished material or ongoing trials. We also contacted the authors of primary studies to identify any unpublished material. In addition, we wrote to all leading heart centres in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria to check whether they were aware of any ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (SZ and SK) independently assessed trials for eligibility, estimated the risk of bias and extracted all data. We calculated effect sizes for each comparison (Hedges’ g) and meta-analysed data using a random-effects model. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe added six studies to this update. Overall, we included 23 studies (2669 participants).\nFor the majority of outcomes (two-thirds), we could not perform a meta-analysis since outcomes were not measured, or data were provided by one trial only.\nNo study reported data on the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Only one study reported data on the number of participants below 30/100 mm on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Psychological interventions did not reduce pain intensity in the short-term interval (g 0.39, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.96, 2 studies, 104 participants, low-quality evidence), medium-term interval (g -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.20, 4 studies, 413 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or in the long-term interval (g 0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.30, 2 studies, 200 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nNo study reported data on median time to re-medication or on number of participants re-medicated. Only two studies provided data on postoperative analgesic use in the short-term interval, showing that psychological interventions did not reduce the use of analgesic medication (g 1.18, 95% CI -2.03 to 4.39, 2 studies, 104 participants, low-quality evidence). Studies revealed that psychological interventions reduced mental distress in the medium-term (g 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60, 13 studies, 1388 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and likewise in the long-term interval (g 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, 14 studies, 1586 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Psychological interventions did not improve mobility in the medium-term interval (g 0.23, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.67, 3 studies, 444 participants, low-quality evidence), nor in the long-term interval (g 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.28, 4 studies, 458 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Only two studies reported data on time to extubation, indicating that psychological interventions reduced the time to extubation (g 0.56, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.03, 2 studies, 154 participants, low-quality evidence).\nOverall, the very low to moderate quality of the body of evidence on the efficacy of psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery cannot be regarded as sufficient to draw robust conclusions.\nMost 'Risk of bias' assessments were low or unclear. We judged selection bias (random sequence generation) and attrition bias to be mostly low risk for included studies. However, we judged the risk of selection bias (allocation concealment), performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias to be mostly unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn line with the conclusions of our previous review, there is a lack of evidence to support or refute psychological interventions in order to reduce postoperative pain in participants undergoing open heart surgery. We found moderate-quality evidence that psychological interventions reduced mental distress in participants undergoing open heart surgery. Given the small numbers of studies, it is not possible to draw robust conclusions on the efficacy of psychological interventions on outcomes such as analgesic use, mobility, and time to extubation respectively on adverse events or harms of psychological interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key findings and quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We rated the quality of the evidence from studies using four levels: very low, low, moderate, or high. Very low-quality evidence means that we are very uncertain about the results. High-quality evidence means that we are very confident in the results.\nWe do not know if psychological treatment reduces pain intensity, enhances mobility, or decreases intubation time after open heart surgery. This is because there were not enough data to answer some parts of our review question, because there were problems with the design of some studies, or because results were conflicting. We only found very low to moderate-quality evidence for these outcomes.\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that psychological treatment could reduce mental distress. This means that we are moderately certain about the results because there were psychological treatments that clearly reduced distress whereas others did not.\nThe evidence in our review is current to February 2017."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5192 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSerum procalcitonin (PCT) evaluation has been proposed for early diagnosis and accurate staging and to guide decisions regarding patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock, with possible reduction in mortality.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of serum PCT evaluation for reducing mortality and duration of antimicrobial therapy in adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE (1950 to July 2015); Embase (Ovid SP, 1980 to July 2015); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS via BIREME, 1982 to July 2015); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO host, 1982 to July 2015), and trial registers (ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and CenterWatch, to July 2015). We reran the search in October 2016. We added three studies of interest to a list of ‘Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate these into formal review findings during the review update.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing PCT-guided decisions in at least one of the comparison arms for adults (≥ 18 years old) with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock, according to international definitions and irrespective of the setting.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted study data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. We conducted meta-analysis with random-effects models for the following primary outcomes: mortality and time spent receiving antimicrobial therapy in hospital and in the intensive care unit (ICU), as well as time spent on mechanical ventilation and change in antimicrobial regimen from a broad to a narrower spectrum.\nMain results\nWe included 10 trials with 1215 participants. Low-quality evidence showed no significant differences in mortality at longest follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.01; I2 = 10%; 10 trials; N = 1156), at 28 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; N = 316), at ICU discharge (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.11; I2 = 49%; three trials; N = 506) and at hospital discharge (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.27; I2 = 0%; seven trials; N = 805; moderate-quality evidence). However, mean time receiving antimicrobial therapy in the intervention groups was -1.28 days (95% CI to -1.95 to -0.61; I2 = 86%; four trials; N = 313; very low-quality evidence). No primary study has analysed the change in antimicrobial regimen from a broad to a narrower spectrum.\nAuthors' conclusions\nUp-to-date evidence of very low to moderate quality, with insufficient sample power per outcome, does not clearly support the use of procalcitonin-guided antimicrobial therapy to minimize mortality, mechanical ventilation, clinical severity, reinfection or duration of antimicrobial therapy of patients with septic conditions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Sepsis is defined as confirmed or suspected infection associated with a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). This condition can evolve to an acute organ dysfunction, known as 'severe sepsis'; or to persistent hypotension, even after adequate fluid replacement, known as 'septic shock'. Procalcitonin (PCT) is a biological indicator in the blood that has been found to increase during blood infection. We wanted to assess whether evaluation of PCT can reduce mortality and time receiving antimicrobial therapy in adults with blood infection. To this end, we compared PCT versus nothing, versus standard care (only usual clinical judgement) and versus other blood chemical indicators. Nowadays, other chemical indicators include C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukins and neopterin."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5193 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgery remains a mainstay of treatment for malignant tumours; however, surgical manipulation leads to a significant systemic release of tumour cells. Whether these cells lead to metastases is largely dependent on the balance between aggressiveness of the tumour cells and resilience of the body. Surgical stress per se, anaesthetic agents and administration of opioid analgesics perioperatively can compromise immune function and might shift the balance towards progression of minimal residual disease. Regional anaesthesia techniques provide perioperative pain relief; they therefore reduce the quantity of systemic opioids and of anaesthetic agents used. Additionally, regional anaesthesia techniques are known to prevent or attenuate the surgical stress response. In recent years, the potential benefit of regional anaesthesia techniques for tumour recurrence has received major attention and has been discussed many times in the literature. In preparing this review, we aimed to summarize the current evidence systematically and comprehensively.\nObjectives\nTo establish whether anaesthetic technique (general anaesthesia versus regional anaesthesia or a combination of the two techniques) influences the long-term prognosis for individuals with malignant tumours.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 12), PubMed (1950 to 15 December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 15 December 2013), BIOSIS (1926 to 15 December 2013) and Web of Science (1965 to 15 December 2013). We handsearched relevant websites and conference proceedings and reference lists of cited articles. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials that investigated the effects of general versus regional anaesthesia on the risk of malignant tumour recurrence in patients undergoing resection of primary malignant tumours. Comparisons of interventions consisted of (1) general anaesthesia alone versus general anaesthesia combined with one or more regional anaesthetic techniques; (2) general anaesthesia combined with one or more regional anaesthetic techniques versus one or more regional anaesthetic techniques; and (3) general anaesthesia alone versus one or more regional anaesthetic techniques. Primary outcomes included (1) overall survival, (2) progression-free survival and (3) time to tumour progression.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently scanned the titles and abstracts of identified reports and extracted study data.\nAll primary outcome variables are time-to-event data. If the individual trial report provided summary statistics with odds ratios, relative risks or Kaplan-Meier curves, extracted data enabled us to calculate the hazard ratio using the hazard ratio calculating spreadsheet. To assess risk of bias, we used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included four studies with a total of 746 participants. All studies included adult patients undergoing surgery for primary tumour resection. Two studies enrolled male and female participants undergoing major abdominal surgery for cancer. One study enrolled male participants undergoing surgery for prostate cancer, and one study male participants undergoing surgery for colon cancer. Follow-up time ranged from nine to 17 years. All four studies compared general anaesthesia alone versus general anaesthesia combined with epidural anaesthesia and analgesia. All four studies are secondary data analyses of previously conducted prospective randomized controlled trials.\nOf the four included studies, only three contributed to the outcome of overall survival, and two each to the outcomes of progression-free survival and time to tumour progression. In our meta-analysis, we could not find an advantage for either study group for the outcomes of overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.24) and progression-free survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38). For progression-free survival, the level of inconsistency was high. Pooled data for time to tumour progression showed a slightly favourable outcome for the control group (general anaesthesia alone) compared with the intervention group (epidural and general anaesthesia) (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.25).\nQuality of evidence was graded low for overall survival and very low for progression-free survival and time to tumour progression. The outcome of overall survival was downgraded for serious imprecision and serious indirectness. The outcomes of progression-free survival and time to tumour progression were also downgraded for serious inconsistency and serious risk of bias, respectively.\nReporting of adverse events was sparse, and data could not be analysed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, evidence for the benefit of regional anaesthesia techniques on tumour recurrence is inadequate. An encouraging number of prospective randomized controlled trials are ongoing, and it is hoped that their results, when reported, will add evidence for this topic in the near future.\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": "We aimed to discover whether different types of anaesthesia used during cancer surgery could influence long-term survival or the rate of tumour recurrence in patients undergoing cancer surgery."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5194 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIt is estimated that up to 1% of people in high-income countries suffer from a leg ulcer at some time in their life. The majority of leg ulcers are associated with circulation problems; poor blood return in the veins causes venous ulcers (around 70% of ulcers) and poor blood supply to the legs causes arterial ulcers (around 22% of ulcers). Treatment of arterial leg ulcers is directed towards correcting poor arterial blood supply, for example by correcting arterial blockages (either surgically or pharmaceutically). If the blood supply has been restored, these arterial ulcers can heal following principles of good wound-care. Dressings and topical agents make up a part of good wound-care for arterial ulcers, but there are many products available, and it is unclear what impact these have on ulcer healing. This is the third update of a review first published in 2003.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether topical agents and wound dressings affect healing in arterial ulcers. To compare healing rates and patient-centred outcomes between wound dressings and topical agents.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Allied and Complementary Medicine databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials register to 28 January 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating dressings and topical agents in the treatment of arterial leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with arterial leg ulcers irrespective of method of diagnosis. Trials that included participants with mixed arterio-venous disease and diabetes were eligible for inclusion if they presented results separately for the different groups. All wound dressings and topical agents were eligible for inclusion in this review. We excluded trials which did not report on at least one of the primary outcomes (time to healing, proportion completely healed, or change in ulcer area).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted information on the participants' characteristics, the interventions, and outcomes using a standardised data extraction form. Review authors resolved any disagreements through discussion. We presented the data narratively due to differences in the included trials. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nTwo trials met the inclusion criteria. One compared 2% ketanserin ointment in polyethylene glycol (PEG) with PEG alone, used twice a day by 40 participants with arterial leg ulcers, for eight weeks or until healing, whichever was sooner. One compared topical application of blood-derived concentrated growth factor (CGF) with standard dressing (polyurethane film or foam); both applied weekly for six weeks by 61 participants with non-healing ulcers (venous, diabetic arterial, neuropathic, traumatic, or vasculitic). Both trials were small, reported results inadequately, and were of low methodological quality. Short follow-up times (six and eight weeks) meant it would be difficult to capture sufficient healing events to allow us to make comparisons between treatments.\nOne trial demonstrated accelerated wound healing in the ketanserin group compared with the control group. In the trial that compared CGF with standard dressings, the number of participants with diabetic arterial ulcers were only reported in the CGF group (9/31), and the number of participants with diabetic arterial ulcers and their data were not reported separately for the standard dressing group. In the CGF group, 66.6% (6/9) of diabetic arterial ulcers showed more than a 50% decrease in ulcer size compared to 6.7% (2/30) of non-healing ulcers treated with standard dressing. We assessed this as very-low certainty evidence due to the small number of studies and arterial ulcer participants, inadequate reporting of methodology and data, and short follow-up period.\nOnly one trial reported side effects (complications), stating that no participant experienced these during follow-up (six weeks, low-certainty evidence). It should also be noted that ketanserin is not licensed in all countries for use in humans. Neither study reported time to ulcer healing, patient satisfaction or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine whether the choice of topical agent or dressing affects the healing of arterial leg ulcers.\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 blood circulation problems in their legs can develop leg ulcers, with adults having around a 1% chance of suffering from a leg ulcer at some time in their life. The majority of ulcers (around 70%), result from poor blood flow in the veins and are called venous leg ulcers. These are generally treated by compression. Arterial leg ulcers (around 22% of ulcers) occur because of poor blood supply to the legs, when there is a block in a leg artery or narrowing of the arteries (atherosclerosis). Without treatment of the underlying poor arterial blood supply, ulcers take a long time to heal or may even never heal. These ulcers are treated to promote healing and protect from infection, by covering them with dressings or using topical agents, or both. A variety of types of dressings can be used, depending on whether the main intention is to treat infection, reduce ulcer pain, or manage the fluid that can leak from these ulcers (exudate), and so promote healing."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5195 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma is an illness that commonly affects adults and children, and it serves as a common reason for children to attend emergency departments. An asthma exacerbation is characterised by acute or subacute worsening of shortness of breath, cough, wheezing, and chest tightness and may be triggered by viral respiratory infection, poor compliance with usual medication, a change in the weather, or exposure to allergens or irritants.\nMost children with asthma have mild or moderate exacerbations and respond well to first-line therapy (inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and systemic corticosteroids). However, the best treatment for the small proportion of seriously ill children who do not respond to first-line therapy is not well understood. Currently, a large number of treatment options are available and there is wide variation in management.\nObjectives\nMain objective\n- To summarise Cochrane Reviews with or without meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of second-line treatment for children with acute exacerbations of asthma (i.e. after first-line treatments, titrated oxygen delivery, and administration of intermittent inhaled short-acting beta2-agonists and oral corticosteroids have been tried and have failed)\nSecondary objectives\n- To identify gaps in the current evidence base that will inform recommendations for future research and subsequent Cochrane Reviews\n- To categorise information on reported outcome measures used in trials of escalation of treatment for acute exacerbations of asthma in children, and to make recommendations for development and reporting of standard outcomes in future trials and reviews\n- To identify relevant randomised controlled trials that have been published since the date of publication of each included review\nMethods\nWe included Cochrane Reviews assessing interventions for children with acute exacerbations of asthma. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The search is current to 28 December 2019. We also identified trials that were potentially eligible for, but were not currently included in, published reviews. We assessed the quality of included reviews using the ROBIS criteria (tool used to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews). We presented an evidence synthesis of data from reviews alongside an evidence map of clinical trials. Primary outcomes were length of stay, hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, and adverse effects. We summarised all findings in the text and reported data for each outcome in 'Additional tables'.\nMain results\nWe identified 17 potentially eligible Cochrane Reviews but extracted data from, and rated the quality of, 13 reviews that reported results for children alone. We excluded four reviews as one did not include any randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one did not provide subgroup data for children, and the last two had been updated and replaced by subsequent reviews.\nThe 13 reviews included 67 trials; the number of trials in each review ranged from a single trial up to 27 trials. The vast majority of comparisons included between one and three trials, involving fewer than 100 participants. The total number of participants included in reviews ranged from 40 to 2630. All studies included children; 16 (24%) included children younger than two years of age. Most of the reviews reported search dates older than four years.\nWe have summarised the published evidence as outlined in Cochrane Reviews. Key findings, in terms of our primary outcomes, are that (1) intravenous magnesium sulfate was the only intervention shown to reduce hospital length of stay (high-certainty evidence); (2) no evidence suggested that any intervention reduced the risk of intensive care admission (low- to very low-certainty evidence); (3) the risk of hospital admission was reduced by the addition of inhaled anticholinergic agents to inhaled beta2-agonists (moderate-certainty evidence), the use of intravenous magnesium sulfate (high-certainty evidence), and the use of inhaled heliox (low-certainty evidence); (4) the addition of inhaled magnesium sulfate to usual bronchodilator therapy appears to reduce serious adverse events during hospital admission (moderate-certainty evidence); (5) aminophylline increased vomiting compared to placebo (moderate-certainty evidence) and increased nausea and nausea/vomiting compared to intravenous beta2-agonists (low-certainty evidence); and (6) the addition of anticholinergic therapy to short-acting beta2-agonists appeared to reduce the risk of nausea (high-certainty evidence) and tremor (moderate-certainty evidence) but not vomiting (low-certainty evidence).\nWe considered 4 of the 13 reviews to be at high risk of bias based on the ROBIS framework. In all cases, this was due to concerns regarding identification and selection of studies. The certainty of evidence varied widely (by review and also by outcome) and ranged from very low to high.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on interventions for escalation of therapy for acute exacerbations of asthma in children from Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials. A vast majority of comparisons involved between one and three trials and fewer than 100 participants, making it difficult to assess the balance between benefits and potential harms. Due to the lack of comparative studies between various treatment options, we are unable to make firm practice recommendations. Intravenous magnesium sulfate appears to reduce both hospital length of stay and the risk of hospital admission. Hospital admission is also reduced with the addition of inhaled anticholinergic agents to inhaled beta2-agonists. However, further research is required to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from these therapies.\nDue to the relatively rare incidence of acute severe paediatric asthma, multi-centre research will be required to generate high-quality evidence. A number of existing Cochrane Reviews should be updated, and we recommend that a new review be conducted on the use of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy. Important priorities include development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future trials in acute severe asthma exacerbations and determination of clinically important differences in these outcomes, which can then inform adequately powered future trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "What is the effectiveness and safety of treatment options available for children with acute asthma who do not improve with standard first-line treatment?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5196 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with cancer with febrile neutropenia are at risk of severe infections and mortality and are thus treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. However, the recommended duration of antibiotic therapy differs across guidelines.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety of protocol-guided discontinuation of antibiotics regardless of neutrophil count, compared to continuation of antibiotics until neutropenia resolution in people with cancer with fever and neutropenia, in terms of mortality and morbidity. To assess the emergence of resistant bacteria in people with cancer treated with short courses of antibiotic therapy compared with people with cancer treated until resolution of neutropenia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS up to 1 October 2018. We searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing and unpublished trials. We reviewed the references of all identified studies for additional trials and handsearched conference proceedings of international infectious diseases and oncology and haematology conferences.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a short antibiotic therapy course in which discontinuation of antibiotics was guided by protocols regardless of the neutrophil count to a long course in which antibiotics were continued until neutropenia resolution in people with cancer with febrile neutropenia. The primary outcome was 30-day or end of follow-up all-cause mortality.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed all studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for all included trials. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) whenever possible. For dichotomous outcomes with zero events in both arms of the trials, we conducted meta-analysis of risk differences (RDs) as well. For continuous outcomes, we extracted means with standard deviations (SD) from the studies and computed mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. If no substantial clinical heterogeneity was found, trials were pooled using the Mantel–Haenszel fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs comprising a total of 662 distinct febrile neutropenia episodes. The studies included adults and children, and had variable design and criteria for discontinuation of antibiotics in both study arms. All included studies but two were performed before the year 2000. All studies included people with cancer with fever of unknown origin and excluded people with microbiological documented infections.\nWe found no significant difference between the short-antibiotic therapy arm and the long-antibiotic therapy arm for all-cause mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.62; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision and high risk of selection bias. The number of fever days was significantly lower for people in the short-antibiotic treatment arm compared to the long-antibiotic treatment arm (mean difference -0.64, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.32; I² = 30%). In all studies, total antibiotic days were fewer in the intervention arm by three to seven days compared to the long antibiotic therapy. We found no significant differences in the rates of clinical failure (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for clinical failure due to variable and inconsistent definitions of clinical failure across studies, possible selection bias, and wide confidence intervals. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bacteraemia occurring after randomisation (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.66; very low-certainty evidence), while the incidence of any documented infections was significantly higher in the short-antibiotic therapy arm (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.57). There was no significant difference in the incidence of invasive fungal infections (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.31) and development of antibiotic resistance (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.61). The data on hospital stay were too sparse to permit any meaningful conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe could make no strong conclusions on the safety of antibiotic discontinuation before neutropenia resolution among people with cancer with febrile neutropenia based on the existing evidence and its low certainty. Results of microbiological outcomes favouring long antibiotic therapy may be misleading due to lower culture positivity rates under antibiotic therapy and not true differences in infection rates. Well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are required that address this issue in the era of rising antibiotic resistance.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to 1 October 2018."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5197 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles with embryos derived from donated oocytes. In both situations, the endometrium is primed with oestrogen and progestogen in different doses and routes of administration.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the most effective endometrial preparation for women undergoing transfer with frozen embryos or embryos from donor oocytes with regard to the subsequent live birth rate (LBR).\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trials registers and abstracts of reproductive societies' meetings were searched in June 2020 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analysed all available interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or between each other. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical and multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, cycle cancellation, endometrial thickness and adverse effects.\nMain results\nThirty-one RCTs (5426 women) were included. Evidence was moderate to very low-quality: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, and serious imprecision.\nStimulated versus programmed cycle\nWe are uncertain whether a letrozole-stimulated cycle compared to a programmed cycle, for endometrial preparation, improves LBR (odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 3.26; 100 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence).\nStimulating with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), letrozole or clomiphene citrate may improve clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.38; 656 participants; five studies; I2 = 11%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if they reduce miscarriage rate (MR) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.71; 355 participants; three studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Endometrial thickness (ET) may be reduced with clomiphene citrate (mean difference(MD) -1.04, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.49; 92 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.\nNatural versus programmed cycle\nWe are uncertain of the effect from a natural versus programmed cycle for LBR (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; 1285 participants; four studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and CPR (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; 1249 participants; five studies; I2 = 60%; very low-quality evidence), while a natural cycle probably reduces the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 734 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and ET. No study reported other outcomes.\nTransdermal versus oral oestrogens\nFrom low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect transdermal compared to oral oestrogens has on CPR (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; 504 participants; three studies; I2 = 58%) or MR (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.09; 414 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%). Other outcomes were not reported.\nDay of starting administration of progestogen\nWhen doing a fresh ET using donated oocytes in a synchronised cycle starting progestogen on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) or the day after OPU, in comparison with recipients that start progestogen the day prior to OPU, probably increases the CPR (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.08; 282 participants; one study, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or MR. It probably reduces the CCR (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.74; 282 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). No study reported other outcomes.\nGonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus control\nA cycle with GnRH agonist compared to without may improve LBR (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.78; 234 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect on CPR (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1289 participants; eight studies; I2 = 20%), MR (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.00; 828 participants; four studies; I2 = 0%), CCR (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 530 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%) and ET (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.16; 697 participants; four studies; I2 = 4%). No study reported other outcomes.\nAmong different GnRH agonists\nFrom very low-quality evidence we are uncertain if cycles among different GnRH agonists improves CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes.\nGnRH agonists versus GnRH antagonists\nGnRH antagonists compared to agonists probably improves CPR (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; 473 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and MPR. No study reported other outcomes.\nAspirin versus control\nFrom very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with aspirin versus without improves LBR, CPR, or ET.\nSteroids versus control\nFrom very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with steroids compared to without improves LBR, CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence on the use of any particular intervention for endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. In frozen embryo transfers, low-quality evidence showed that clinical pregnancy rates may be improved in a stimulated cycle compared to a programmed one, and we are uncertain of the effect when comparing a programmed cycle to a natural cycle. Cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced in a natural cycle. Although administering a GnRH agonist, compared to without, may improve live birth rates, clinical pregnancy rates will probably be improved in a GnRH antagonist cycle over an agonist cycle.\nIn fresh synchronised oocyte donor cycles, the clinical pregnancy rate is probably improved and cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced when starting progestogen the day of or day after donor oocyte retrieval.\nAdequately powered studies are needed to evaluate each treatment more accurately.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "What is the most effective method for endometrial preparation in women undergoing embryo transfers with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5198 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTinnitus is a symptom defined as the perception of sound in the absence of an external source. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice consultations every year where the primary complaint is tinnitus, equating to a major burden on healthcare services. Clinical management strategies include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), sound enrichment using ear-level sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies to manage co-morbid symptoms such as insomnia, anxiety or depression.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus in adults and children.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6); 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 7 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults and children with acute or chronic subjective tinnitus. We included studies where the intervention involved Ginkgo biloba and this was compared to placebo, no intervention, or education and information. Concurrent use of other medication or other treatment was acceptable if used equally in each group. Where an additional intervention was used equally in both groups, we analysed this as a separate comparison. The review included all courses of Ginkgo biloba, regardless of dose regimens or formulations, and for any duration of treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were tinnitus symptom severity measured as a global score on a multi-item tinnitus questionnaire and serious adverse effects (bleeding, seizures). Our secondary outcomes were tinnitus loudness (change in subjective perception), tinnitus intrusiveness, generalised depression, generalised anxiety, health-related quality of life and other adverse effects (gastrointestinal upset, headache, allergic reaction). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nThis review included 12 studies (with a total of 1915 participants). Eleven studies compared the effects of Ginkgo biloba with placebo and one study compared the effects of Ginkgo biloba with hearing aids to hearing aids alone. All included studies were parallel-group RCTs. In general, risk of bias was high or unclear due to selection bias and poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessments. Due to heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and measurement methods used, only limited data pooling was possible.\nGinkgo biloba versus placebo\nWhen we pooled data from two studies for the primary outcome tinnitus symptom severity, we found that Ginkgo biloba may have little to no effect (Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores) at three to six months compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.35 (scale 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.26 to 5.55; 2 studies; 85 participants) (very low-certainty). Ginkgo biloba may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding or seizures, with no serious adverse effects reported in either group (4 studies; 1154 participants; low-certainty).\nFor the secondary outcomes, one study found that there may be little to no difference between the effects of Ginkgo biloba and placebo on tinnitus loudness measured with audiometric loudness matching at 12 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -4.00 (scale -10 to 140 dB), 95% CI -13.33 to 5.33; 1 study; 73 participants) (very low-certainty). One study found that there may be little to no difference between the effects of Ginkgo biloba and placebo on health-related quality of life measured with the Glasgow Health Status Inventory at three months (MD -0.58 (scale 0 to 100), 95% CI -4.67 to 3.51; 1 study; 60 participants) (low-certainty). Ginkgo biloba may not increase the frequency of other adverse effects (gastrointestinal upset, headache, allergic reaction) at three months compared to placebo (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.60; 4 studies; 1175 participants) (low-certainty). None of the studies reported the other secondary outcomes of tinnitus intrusiveness or changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety.\nGingko biloba with concurrent intervention versus concurrent intervention only\nOne study compared Ginkgo biloba with hearing aids to hearing aids only. It assessed the mean difference in the change in Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores and tinnitus loudness using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) at three months. The study did not report adverse effects, tinnitus intrusiveness, changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety, or health-related quality of life. This was a single, very small study (22 participants) and for all outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of Ginkgo biloba for the treatment of tinnitus when compared to placebo. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of Ginkgo biloba when used with concurrent intervention (hearing aids). The certainty of the evidence for the reported outcomes, assessed using GRADE, ranged from low to very low. Future research into the effectiveness of Ginkgo biloba in patients with tinnitus should use rigorous methodology. Randomisation and blinding should be of the highest quality, given the subjective nature of tinnitus and the strong likelihood of a placebo response. The CONSORT statement should be used in the design and reporting of future studies. We also recommend the use of validated, patient-centred outcome measures for research in the field of tinnitus.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is tinnitus?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Tinnitus is a symptom where people have a perception of sound without there being an external source. It is often described as a ringing, hissing, buzzing or whooshing sound. It is common, affecting between 5% and 43% of the general population, and its prevalence increases with age. For some people tinnitus is persistent and troublesome, and it may lead to sleep problems (insomnia), difficulty concentrating, difficulties in communication and social interaction, and anxiety and depression. Management can include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies. The herbal supplement Ginkgo biloba has also been used."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5199 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCervical cerclage is a well-known surgical procedure carried out during pregnancy. It involves positioning of a suture (stitch) around the neck of the womb (cervix), aiming to give mechanical support to the cervix and thereby reduce risk of preterm birth. The effectiveness and safety of this procedure remains controversial. This is an update of a review last published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether the use of cervical stitch in singleton pregnancy at high risk of pregnancy loss based on woman's history and/or ultrasound finding of 'short cervix' and/or physical exam improves subsequent obstetric care and fetal outcome.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of identified studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised trials of cervical suturing in singleton pregnancies. Cervical stitch was carried out when the pregnancy was considered to be of sufficiently high risk due to a woman's history, a finding of short cervix on ultrasound or other indication determined by physical exam. We included any study that compared cerclage with either no treatment or any alternative intervention. We planned to include cluster-randomised studies but not cross-over trials. We excluded quasi-randomised studies. We included studies reported in abstract form only.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThis updated review includes a total of 15 trials (3490 women); three trials were added for this update (152 women).\nCerclage versus no cerclage\nOverall, cerclage probably leads to a reduced risk of perinatal death when compared with no cerclage, although the confidence interval (CI) crosses the line of no effect (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 10 studies, 2927 women; moderate quality evidence). Considering stillbirths and neonatal deaths separately reduced the numbers of events and sample size. Although the relative effect of cerclage is similar, estimates were less reliable with fewer data and assessed as of low quality (stillbirths RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.75; 5 studies, 1803 women; low quality evidence; neonatal deaths before discharge RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39; 6 studies, 1714 women; low quality evidence). Serious neonatal morbidity was similar with and without cerclage (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.18; 6 studies, 883 women; low-quality evidence). Pregnant women with and without cerclage were equally likely to have a baby discharged home healthy (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.06; 4 studies, 657 women; moderate quality evidence).\nPregnant women with cerclage were less likely to have preterm births compared to controls before 37, 34 (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.89; 9 studies, 2415 women; high quality evidence) and 28 completed weeks of gestation.\nFive subgroups based on clinical indication provided data for analysis (history-indicated; short cervix based on one-off ultrasound in high risk women; short cervix found by serial scans in high risk women; physical exam-indicated; and short cervix found on scan in low risk or mixed populations). There were too few trials in these clinical subgroups to make meaningful conclusions and no evidence of differential effects.\nCerclage versus progesterone\nTwo trials (129 women) compared cerclage to prevention with vaginal progesterone in high risk women with short cervix on ultrasound; these trials were too small to detect reliable, clinically important differences for any review outcome. One included trial compared cerclage with intramuscular progesterone (75 women) which lacked power to detect group differences.\nHistory indicated cerclage versus ultrasound indicated cerclage\nEvidence from two trials (344 women) was too limited to establish differences for clinically important outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCervical cerclage reduces the risk of preterm birth in women at high-risk of preterm birth and probably reduces risk of perinatal deaths. There was no evidence of any differential effect of cerclage based on previous obstetric history or short cervix indications, but data were limited for all clinical groups. The question of whether cerclage is more or less effective than other preventative treatments, particularly vaginal progesterone, remains unanswered.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Inserting a stitch helps pregnant women who are at high risk avoid early births compared to no stitch. Inserting a stitch may also improve a baby's chance for survival. We found too few clinical trials to understand whether cervical stitch is more effective than other treatments for preventing early births, such as progesterone (a hormone drug used to prevent early birth). We found too few data to understand if it is better to have a stitch inserted early in pregnancy (based on the mother's previous history) or to wait to perform an ultrasound scan later in pregnancy to see if the cervix has become shortened."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5200 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThalassaemia is an autosomal recessive blood disorder, caused by mutations in globin genes or their regulatory regions, resulting in a reduced rate of synthesis of one of the globin chains that make up haemoglobin. In β-thalassaemia there is an underproduction of β-globin chains combined with excess of free α-globin chains. The excess free α-globin chains precipitate in red blood cells, leading to their increased destruction (haemolysis) and ineffective erythropoiesis. The conventional treatment is based on the correction of haemoglobin through regular red blood cell transfusions and treating the iron overload that develops subsequently with iron chelation therapy. Although, early detection and initiations of such supportive treatment has improved the quality of life for people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is the only widely available therapy with a curative potential. Gene therapy for β-thalassaemia has recently received conditional authorisation for marketing in Europe, and may soon become widely available as another alternative therapy with curative potential for people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, in people with transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries.\nDate of the most recent search: 07 April 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with each other or with standard therapy (regular transfusion and chelation regimen).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened trials and had planned to extract data and assess risk of bias using standard Cochrane methodologies and assess the quality using GRADE approach, but no trials were identified for inclusion in the current review.\nMain results\nNo relevant trials were retrieved after a comprehensive search of the literature.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness and safety of different types of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in people with transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia. The absence of high-level evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions emphasises the need for well-designed, adequately-powered, randomised controlled clinical trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Thalassaemia is a disorder that occurs because of a mutation in either the α- or β-globin genes causing decreased production of haemoglobin (a protein found in red blood cells that carries oxygen) and increased destruction of red blood cells. Decreased production of haemoglobin and destruction of red blood cells leads to anaemia and significant morbidity in affected individuals. While anaemia can be treated effectively with regular blood transfusions, repeated transfusions lead to the accumulation of iron in the body, which unless treated with iron chelation can result in multiorgan disease particularly heart and lung. These toxicities tend to accumulate over time leading to reduced quality of life and early death. Additionally, blood transfusions do not provide a cure. The use of hematopoietic (blood-forming) stem cell transplantation involves replacing the unhealthy hematopoietic stem cells with normal hematopoietic stem cells from either a healthy donor (allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation) or genetically correcting the recipient's own cells and reinfusing them back into the individual (autologous gene therapy). These stem cells then produce normal red blood cells containing normal amounts of globin chains and thus ameliorate anaemia."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5201 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRecurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) is a benign condition of the mucosa of the upper aerodigestive tract. It is characterised by recurrent papillomatous lesions and is associated with human papillomavirus (HPV). Frequent recurrence and rapid papilloma growth are common and in part responsible for the onset of potentially life-threatening symptoms. Most patients afflicted by the condition will require repeated surgical treatments to maintain their airway, and these may result in scarring and voice problems. Photodynamic therapy introduces a light-sensitising agent, which is administered either orally or by injection. This substance (called a photo-sensitiser) is selectively retained in hyperplastic and neoplastic tissue, including papilloma. It is then activated by light of a specific wavelength and may be used as a sole or adjuvant treatment for RRP.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of photodynamic therapy in the management of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) in children and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 27 January 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials utilising photodynamic therapy as sole or adjuvant therapy in participants of any age with proven RRP versus control intervention. Primary outcome measures were symptom improvement (respiratory distress/dyspnoea and voice quality), quality of life improvement and recurrence-free interval. Secondary outcomes included reduction in the frequency of surgical intervention, reduction in disease volume and adverse effects of treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was not possible and results are presented descriptively.\nMain results\nWe included one trial with a total of 23 participants. This study was at high risk of bias. None of our primary outcomes and only one of our secondary outcomes (reduction in volume of disease, assessed endoscopically) was measured in the study. There was no significant difference between the groups (very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects reported included airway swelling requiring intubation in a child with severe RRP a few hours after photodynamic therapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence from high-quality randomised controlled trials to determine whether photodynamic therapy alters the course of disease or provides an added benefit to surgery in patients with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Multicentre randomised controlled trials with appropriate sample sizes and long-term follow-up are required to evaluate whether photodynamic therapy is of benefit. Outcomes such as improvement in symptoms (respiratory function and voice quality) and quality of life should be measured in future trials.\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 insufficient evidence from the included study that photodynamic therapy has a benefit on its own or in combination with surgery in recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. There was no clear evidence that effects observed in the treatment group were different to those in the control group. Adverse effects reported included airway swelling in a child with severe disease a few hours after photodynamic therapy, which required insertion of a breathing tube and a prolonged stay in hospital."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5202 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nResearch evidence suggests that both mental health professionals and people with severe mental health illness such as schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder find it difficult to communicate with each other effectively about symptoms, treatments and their side effects so that they reach a shared understanding about diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Effective use of communication skills in mental health interactions could be associated with increased patient satisfaction and adherence to treatment.\nObjectives\nTo review the effectiveness of communication skills training for mental health professionals who work with people with severe mental illness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Trials Register (latest search 17 February, 2016) which is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.\nSelection criteria\nAll relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that focused on communication skills training (CST) for mental health professionals who work with people with severe mental illness compared with those who received standard or no training. We sought a number of primary (patient adherence to treatment and attendance at scheduled appointments as well as mental health professionals' satisfaction with the training programme) and secondary outcomes (patients' global state, service use, mental state, patient satisfaction, social functioning, quality of life). RCTs where the unit of randomisation was by cluster (e.g. healthcare facility) were also eligible for inclusion. We included one trial that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we planned to calculate standard estimates of the risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we planned to estimate the mean difference (MD) between groups, or obtain the adjusted mean difference (aMD) where available for cluster-randomised trials. If heterogeneity had been identified, we would have explored this using a random-effects model. We used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table and we assessed risk of bias for the one included study.\nMain results\nWe included one pilot cluster-RCT that recruited a total of 21 psychiatrists and 97 patients. The psychiatrists were randomised to a training programme in communication skills, compared to a no specific training (NST) programme. The trial provided useable data for only one of our prestated outcomes of interest, patient satisfaction. The trial did not report global state but did report mental state and, as global state data were not available, we included these mental state data in the 'Summary of findings' table. There was high risk of bias from attrition because of substantial losses to follow-up and incomplete outcome data.\nPatient satisfaction was measured as satisfaction with treatment and 'experience of therapeutic relationship' at medium term (five months). Satisfaction with treatment was similar between the CST and NST group using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) (1 RCT, n = 66/97*, aMD 1.77 95% CI - 0.13 to 3.68, low-quality evidence). When comparing patient experience of the therapeutic relationship using the STAR-P scale, participants in the CST group rated the therapeutic relationship more positively than participants in the NST group (1 RCT, n = 63/97, aMD 0.21 95% CI 0.01 to 0.41, low-quality evidence).\nMental state scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were similar between treatment groups for general symptoms (1 RCT, n = 59/97, aMD 4.48 95% CI -2.10 to 11.06, low-quality evidence), positive symptoms (1 RCT, n = 59/97, aMD -0.23, 95% CI -2.91 to 2.45, low-quality evidence) and negative symptoms (1 RCT, n = 59/97, aMD 3.42, 95%C CI -0.24 to 7.09, low-quality evidence).\nNo data were available for adherence to treatment, service use or quality of life.\n* Of the total of 97 randomised participants, 66 provided data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence available is from one pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial, it is not adequate enough to draw any robust conclusions. There were relatively few good quality data and the trial is too small to highlight differences in most outcome measures. Adding a CST programme appears to have a modest positive effect on patients' experiences of the therapeutic relationship. More high-quality research is needed in this area.\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 were interested in the effect communication skills training had on patient adherence to treatment, satisfaction, mental state, service use and quality of life. We could only use data reported for the patient's satisfaction with the treatment, with the therapeutic relationship and mental state (psychiatric symptoms). Five months after treatment, patients who were treated by psychiatrists who received communication training had a modest increase in satisfaction with the therapeutic relationship compared with patients treated by psychiatrists who did not receive the training. Satisfaction with treatment and mental state of the patient were similar between the two treatment groups."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5203 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNewborn infants are more prone to seizures than older children and adults. The neuronal injury caused by seizures in neonates often results in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. There are several options for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in neonates. However, the ideal choice of first-, second- and third-line ASM is still unclear. Further, many other aspects of seizure management such as whether ASMs should be initiated for only-electrographic seizures and how long to continue the ASM once seizure control is achieved are elusive.\nObjectives\n1. To assess whether any ASM is more or less effective than an alternative ASM (both ASMs used as first-, second- or third-line treatment) in achieving seizure control and improving neurodevelopmental outcomes in neonates with seizures. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately.\n2. To assess maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy after achieving seizure control. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately.\n3. To assess treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos and three databases in May 2022 and June 2023. These searches were not limited other than by study design to trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included neonates with EEG-confirmed or clinically diagnosed seizures and compared (1) any ASM versus an alternative ASM, (2) maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy, and (3) treatment of clinical or EEG seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence interval (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 18 trials (1342 infants) in this review.\nPhenobarbital versus levetiracetam as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial)\nPhenobarbital is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after first loading dose (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.30; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and after maximal loading dose (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.50; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital when compared to levetiracetam on mortality before discharge (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.52; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), requirement of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.91; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.44; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.76; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months.\nPhenobarbital versus phenytoin as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial)\nWe are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital versus phenytoin on achieving seizure control after maximal loading dose of ASM (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.72; 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months.\nMaintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy in clinically diagnosed neonatal seizures (two trials)\nWe are uncertain about the effect of short-term maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy during the hospital stay (but discontinued before discharge) on the risk of repeat seizures before hospital discharge (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01; 373 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Maintenance therapy with ASM compared to no maintenance therapy may have little or no effect on mortality before discharge (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22; 373 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.61; 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.12; 108 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 14.72; 126 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nTreatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates (two trials)\nTreatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation (MD -1871.16, 95% CI -4525.05 to 782.73; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality before discharge (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.27; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.73; 35 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months.\nWe report data from the most important comparisons here; readers are directed to Results and Summary of Findings tables for all comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPhenobarbital as a first-line ASM is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after the first loading dose and after the maximal loading dose of ASM (moderate-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital + bumetanide may have little or no difference in achieving seizure control when compared to phenobarbital alone (low-certainty evidence). Limited data and very low-certainty evidence preclude us from drawing any reasonable conclusion on the effect of using one ASM versus another on other short- and long-term outcomes.\nIn neonates who achieve seizure control after the first loading dose of phenobarbital, maintenance therapy compared to no maintenance ASM may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality before discharge, mortality by 18 to 24 months, neurodevelopmental disability by 18 to 24 months and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence).\nIn neonates with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy, treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation, all-cause mortality before discharge and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence).\nAll findings of this review apply only to term and late preterm neonates.\nWe need well-designed RCTs for each of the three objectives of this review to improve the precision of the results. These RCTs should use EEG to diagnose seizures and should be adequately powered to assess long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. We need separate RCTs evaluating the choice of ASM in preterm infants.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified 18 trials (including 1342 newborns).\nPhenobarbital is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control in newborns. However, we are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on other outcomes such as death before discharge, requirement for invasive ventilation, sleepiness and epilepsy after discharge.\nMaintenance therapy with anti-seizure medication during hospital stay compared to no maintenance therapy may or may not result in better outcomes for newborns. Similarly, treating seizures only identified on EEG may or may not result in better outcomes."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5204 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChinese herbal medicine (CHM) usage is expected to increase as women suffering from menopausal symptoms are seeking alternative therapy due to concerns from the adverse effects (AEs) associated with hormone therapy (HT). Scientific evidence for their effectiveness and safety is needed.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of menopausal symptoms.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO (from inception to March 2015). Others included Current Control Trials, Citation Indexes, conference abstracts in the ISI Web of Knowledge, LILACS database, PubMed, OpenSIGLE database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI, 1999 to 2015). Other resources included reference lists of articles as well as direct contact with authors.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of CHM with placebo, HT, pharmaceutical drugs, acupuncture, or another CHM formula in women over 18 years of age, and suffering from menopausal symptoms.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed 864 studies for eligibility. Data extractions were performed by them with disagreements resolved through group discussion and clarification of data or direct contact with the study authors. Data analyses were performed in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration guidelines.\nMain results\nWe included 22 RCTs (2902 women). Participants were from different ethnic backgrounds with the majority of Chinese origin.\nWhen CHM was compared with placebo (eight RCTs), there was little or no evidence of a difference between the groups for the following pooled outcomes: hot flushes per day (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.89; 2 trials, 199 women; moderate quality evidence); hot flushes per day assessed by an overall hot flush score in which a difference of one point equates to one mild hot flush per day (MD -0.81 points, 95% CI -2.08 to 0.45; 3 RCTs, 263 women; low quality evidence); and overall vasomotor symptoms per month measured by the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire (MENQOL, scale 0 to 6) (MD -0.42 points; 95% CI -1.52 to 0.68; 3 RCTs, 256 women; low quality evidence).\nIn addition, results from individual studies suggested there was no evidence of a difference between the groups for daily hot flushes assessed by severity (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -1.00, -0.40; 1 RCT, 108 women; moderate quality evidence); or overall monthly hot flushes scores (MD -2.80 points, 95% CI -8.93 to 3.33; 1 RCT, 84 women; very low quality evidence); or overall daily night sweats scores (MD 0.07 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.33, 1 RCT, 64 women; low quality evidence); or overall monthly night sweats scores (MD 1.30 points, 95% CI -1.76 to 4.36, 1 RCT, 84 women; very low quality evidence). However one study using the Kupperman Index reported that overall monthly vasomotor symptom scores were lower in the CHM group (MD -4.79 points, 95% CI -5.52 to -4.06; 1 RCT, 69 women; low quality evidence).\nWhen CHM was compared with hormone therapy (HT) (10 RCTs), only two RCTs reported monthly vasomotor symptoms using MENQOL. It was uncertain whether CHM reduces vasomotor symptoms (MD 0.47 points, 95% CI -0.50 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 127 women; very low quality evidence).\nAdverse effects were not fully reported in the included studies. Adverse events reported by women taking CHM included mild diarrhoea, breast tenderness, gastric discomfort and an unpleasant taste. Effects were inconclusive because of imprecise estimates of effects: CHM versus placebo (RR 1.51; 95% CI 0.69 to 3.33; 7 trials, 705 women; I² = 40%); CHM versus HT (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 864 women; I² = 0%); and CHM versus specific conventional medications (such as Fluoxetine and Estazolam) (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.03 to 1.17; 2 RCTs, 139 women; I² = 61%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence that Chinese herbal medicines were any more or less effective than placebo or HT for the relief of vasomotor symptoms. Effects on safety were inconclusive. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate; there is a need for well-designed randomised controlled studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found insufficient evidence that CHM were any more or less effective than placebo or HT for the relief of vasomotor symptoms. Adverse effects were not well reported, some women taking CHM reported mild diarrhoea, breast tenderness, gastric discomfort and an unpleasant taste. Effects on safety were inconclusive."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5205 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients with newly diagnosed high-risk (HR) neuroblastoma (NBL) still have a poor outcome, despite multi-modality intensive therapy. This poor outcome necessitates the search for new therapies, such as treatment with 131I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine (131I-MIBG).\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and adverse effects of 131I-MIBG therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1945 to 25 April 2016) and Embase (Ovid) (1980 to 25 April 2016). In addition, we handsearched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. We also assessed the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology, Advances in Neuroblastoma Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology; all from 2010 up to and including 2015. We scanned the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register (www.isrctn.com) and the National Institutes of Health Register for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov) on 13 April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), non-randomised single-arm trials with historical controls and cohort studies examining the efficacy of 131I-MIBG therapy in 10 or more patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.\nMain results\nWe identified two eligible cohort studies including 60 children with newly diagnosed HR NBL. All studies had methodological limitations, with regard to both internal (risk of bias) and external validity. As the studies were not comparable with regard to prognostic factors and treatment (and often used different outcome definitions), pooling of results was not possible. In one study, the objective response rate (ORR) was 73% after surgery; the median overall survival was 15 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 to 23); five-year overall survival was 14.6%; median event-free survival was 10 months (95% CI 7 to 13); and five-year event-free survival was 12.2%. In the other study, the ORR was 56% after myeloablative therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation; 10-year overall survival was 6.25%; and event-free survival was not reported. With regard to short-term adverse effects, one study showed a prevalence of 2% (95% CI 0% to 13%; best-case scenario) for death due to myelosuppression. After the first cycle of 131I-MIBG therapy in one study, platelet toxicity occurred in 38% (95% CI 18% to 61%), neutrophil toxicity in 50% (95% CI 28% to 72%) and haemoglobin toxicity in 69% (95% CI 44% to 86%); after the second cycle this was 60% (95% CI 36% to 80%) for platelets and neutrophils and 53% (95% CI 30% to 75%) for haemoglobin. In one study, the prevalence of hepatic toxicity during or within four weeks after last the MIBG treatment was 0% (95% CI 0% to 9%; best-case scenario). Neither study reported cardiovascular toxicity and sialoadenitis. One study assessed long-term adverse events in some of the children: there was elevated plasma thyroid-stimulating hormone in 45% (95% CI 27% to 65%) of children; in all children, free T4 was within the age-related normal range (0%, 95% CI 0% to 15%). There were no secondary malignancies observed (0%, 95% CI 0% to 9%), but only five children survived more than four years.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified no RCTs or CCTs comparing the effectiveness of treatment including 131I-MIBG therapy versus treatment not including 131I-MIBG therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL. We found two small observational studies including chilren. They had high risk of bias, and not all relevant outcome results were available. Based on the currently available evidence, we cannot make recommendations for the use of 131I-MIBG therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL in clinical practice. More high-quality research is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "NBL is a rare solid cancer that develops from special nerves cells. Patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL have a poor outcome, despite intensive treatments such as high-dose chemotherapy to kill the cancer and surgery. This poor outcome needs research to look for new therapies, such as treatment with 131I-MIBG, which is a type of targeted radiotherapy (radiation directed at the cancer without causing too much damage to surrounding area)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5206 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer are still questionable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rates following nipple-sparing mastectomy are very similar to breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer in women.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID) and LILACS (via Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde [BVS]) using the search terms “nipple sparing mastectomy” and “areola-sparing mastectomy”. Also, we searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. All searches were conducted on 30th September 2014 and we did not apply any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) however if there were no RCTs, we expanded our criteria to include non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy compared to modified radical mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (BS and RR) performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We performed descriptive analyses and meta-analyses of the data using Review Manager software. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool to assess studies, and adapted it for non-randomised studies, and we evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe included 11 cohort studies, evaluating a total of 6502 participants undergoing 7018 procedures: 2529 underwent a nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), 818 underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and 3671 underwent traditional mastectomy, also known as modified radical mastectomy (MRM). No participants underwent areola-sparing mastectomy. There was a high risk of confounding for all reported outcomes. For overall survival, the hazard ratio (HR) for NSM compared to SSM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.73; 2 studies; 781 participants) and the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.72 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.13; 2 studies, 1202 participants). Local recurrence was evaluated in two studies, the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.68; 2 studies, 1303 participants). The overall risk of complications was different in NSM when compared to other types of mastectomy in general (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82, 2 studies, P = 0.03; 1067 participants). With respect to skin necrosis, there was no evidence of a difference with NSM compared to other types of mastectomy, but the confidence interval was wide (RR 4.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 30.03, P = 0.15; 4 studies, 1948 participants). We observed no difference among the three types of mastectomy with respect to the risk of local infection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.09, P = 0.91, 2 studies; 496 participants). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing cosmetic outcomes and quality of life, but in general the NSM studies reported a favourable aesthetic result and a gain in quality of life compared with the other types of mastectomy. The quality of evidence was considered very low for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias and wide confidence intervals.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings from these observational studies of very low-quality evidence were inconclusive for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection 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": "We reviewed the evidence about the effectiveness and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy (that is, removing the breast tissue but preserving the entire skin, nipple and areola) compared to traditional mastectomy (that is, removing the skin that overlies the breast including nipple and areola) or skin-sparing mastectomy (that is, removing the breast tissue including the breast and areola but preserving all the skin envelope)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5207 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a widely accessible antipsychotic that can be used to manage psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.\nObjectives\nTo examine whether oral risperidone alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 2017); this register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid use of risperidone and other drugs, combinations of drugs or placebo for people exhibiting aggression or agitation (or both) thought to be due to psychosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a ’Summary of findings’ tables.\nMain results\nThe review now contains data from nine trials (total n = 582) reporting on five comparisons. Due to risk of bias, small size of trials, indirectness of outcome measures and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was graded as very-low quality. None of the included studies provided useable data on our primary outcome 'tranquillisation or asleep' by 30 minutes, repeated need for tranquillisation or any economic outcomes. Data were available for our other main outcomes of agitation or aggression, needing restraint, and incidence of adverse effects.\nRisperidone versus haloperidol (up to 24 hours follow-up)\nFor the outcome, specific behaviour - agitation, no clear difference was found between risperidone and haloperidol in terms of efficacy, measured as at least 50% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Psychotic Agitation Sub-score (PANSS-PAS) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and no effect was observed for need to use restraints (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.21; participants = 28; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Incidence of adverse effects was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).\nRisperidone versus olanzapine\nOne small trial (n = 29) reported useable data for the comparison risperidone versus olanzapine. No effect was observed for agitation measured as PANSS-PAS endpoint score at two hours (MD 2.50, 95% CI -2.46 to 7.46; very low-quality evidence); need to use restraints at four days (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.28; very-low quality evidence); specific movement disorders measured as Behavioural Activity Rating Scale (BARS) endpoint score at four days (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.83; very low-quality evidence).\nRisperidone versus quetiapine\nOne trial reported (n = 40) useable data for the comparison risperidone versus quetiapine. Aggression was measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) endpoint score at two weeks. A clear difference, favouring quetiapine was observed (MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.40; very-low quality evidence). No evidence of a difference between treatment groups could be observed for incidence of akathisia after 24 hours (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.06; very low-quality evidence). Two participants allocated to risperidone and one allocated to quetiapine experienced myocardial ischaemia during the trial.\nRisperidone versus risperidone + oxcarbazepine\nOne trial (n = 68) measured agitation using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component.(PANSS-EC) endpoint score and found a clear difference, favouring the combination treatment at one week (MD 2.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.98; very low-quality evidence), but no effect was observed for global state using Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) endpoint score at one week (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.21; very-low quality evidence). Incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms after 24 hours was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14; very-low quality evidence).\nRisperidone versus risperidone + valproic acid\nTwo trials compared risperidone with a combination of risperidone plus valproic acid. No clear differences between the treatment groups were observed for aggression (MOAS endpoint score at three days: MD 1.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.34; participants = 54; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of akathisia after 24 hours: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; participants = 122; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, results for the main outcomes show no real effect for risperidone. The only data available for use in this review are from nine under-sampled trials and the evidence available is of very low quality. This casts uncertainty on the role of risperidone in rapid tranquillisation for people with psychosis-induced aggression. High-quality pragmatic RCTs are feasible and are needed before clear recommendations can be drawn on the use of risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.\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 review authors conclude that at the moment, there is weak, unclear evidence regarding the use of risperidone for calming people who are aggressive due to psychosis, and no firm conclusions can be made. Therefore, health professionals and people with mental health problems are left without clear evidence-based guidance. However, good quality trials are possible and more research is needed to help people dealing with psychosis-induced aggression consider and understand which medication is better at calming aggression, has fewer side effects and works quickly."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5208 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease is an inherited disorder of hemoglobin, resulting in abnormal red blood cells. These are rigid and may block blood vessels leading to acute painful crises and other complications. Recent research has focused on therapies to rehydrate the sickled cells by reducing the loss of water and ions from them. Little is known about the effectiveness and safety of such drugs. This is an updated version of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the relative risks and benefits of drugs to rehydrate sickled red blood cells.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We also searched online trials registries for any ongoing trials (01 July 2018).\nLast search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 08 October 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of drugs to rehydrate sickled red blood cells compared to placebo or an alternative treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nBoth authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data.\nMain results\nOf the 51 studies identified, three met the inclusion criteria, including 524 people with sickle cell disease aged between 12 and 65 years of age. One study tested the effectiveness of zinc sulphate as compared to placebo and the remaining two assessed senicapoc versus placebo. No deaths were seen in any of the studies (low-quality evidence). The zinc sulphate study showed a significant reduction in painful crises (in a total of 145 participants) over one and a half years, mean difference -2.83 (95% confidence interval -3.51 to -2.15) (moderate-quality evidence). However, analysis was restricted due to limited statistical data. Changes to red blood cell parameters and blood counts were inconsistent (very low-quality evidence). No serious adverse events were noted in the study. The Phase II dose-finding study of senicapoc (a Gardos channel blocker) compared to placebo showed that the high dose senicapoc showed significant improvement in change in hemoglobin level, the number and proportion of dense red blood cells, red blood cell count and indices and hematocrit value (very low-quality evidence). The results with low-dose senicapoc were similar to the high-dose senicapoc group but of lesser magnitude. There was no difference in the frequency of painful crises between the three groups (low-quality evidence). A subsequent Phase III study of senicapoc was terminated early since there was no difference observed between the treatment and control groups in the primary end point of painful crises.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile the results of zinc for reducing sickle-related crises are encouraging, larger and longer-term multicenter studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this therapy for people with sickle cell disease.\nWhile the Phase II and the prematurely terminated phase III studies of senicapoc showed that the drug improved red blood cell survival (depending on dose), this did not lead to fewer painful crises.\nGiven this is no longer an active area of research, this review will no longer be regularly updated.\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 included three studies with 524 people with sickle cell disease aged between 12 and 65 years of age. The intervention in one study was zinc sulphate and in two studies was senicapoc. Each study was compared to a placebo group (a substance which contains no medication). For each study people were selected for one treatment or the other randomly. The studies lasted from three months to 18 months."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5209 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUnilateral spatial neglect (USN) is characterized by the inability to report or respond to people or objects presented on the side contralateral to the lesioned side of the brain and has been associated with poor functional outcomes and long stays in hospitals and rehabilitation centers. Pharmacological interventions (medical interventions only, use of drugs to improve the health condition), such as dopamine and noradrenergic agonists or pro-cholinergic treatment, have been used in people affected by USN after stroke, and effects of these treatments could provide new insights for health professionals and policy makers.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (April 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to April 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to April 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to April 2015) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to April 2015). We also searched trials and research registers, screened reference lists, and contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies (April 2015).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data.\nMain results\nWe included in the review two studies with a total of 30 randomly assigned participants. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low as the result of study limitations, small numbers of events, and small sample sizes, with imprecision in the confidence interval (CI). We were not able to perform meta-analysis because of heterogeneity related to the different interventions evaluated between included studies. Very low-quality evidence from one trial (20 participants) comparing effects of rivastigmine plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation on overall USN at discharge showed the following: Barrage (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.78); Letter Cancellation (MD 10.60, 95% CI 2.07 to 19.13); Sentence Reading (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.69 to 1.09), and the Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test (MD -4.40, 95% CI -8.28 to -0.52); no statistical significance was observed for the same outcomes at 30 days' follow-up. In another trial (10 participants), study authors showed statistically significant reduction in omissions in the three cancellation tasks under transdermal nicotine treatment (mean number of omissions 2.93 ± 0.5) compared with both baseline (4.95 ± 0.8) and placebo (5.14 ± 0.9) (main effect of treatment condition: F (2.23) = 11.06; P value < 0.0001). One major adverse event occurred in the transdermal nicotine treatment group, and treatment was discontinued in the affected participant. None of the included trials reported data on several of the prespecified outcomes (falls, balance, depression or anxiety, poststroke fatigue, and quality of life).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe quality of the evidence from available RCTs was very low. The effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke are therefore uncertain. Additional large RCTs are needed to evaluate these treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified two studies involving 30 participants up to April 2015. We are uncertain as to whether comparison of different pharmacological interventions (rivastigmine, transdermal nicotine)showed an important effect on (1) the ability of people to recognize their paralyzed limb, and (2) independence in daily life functions after stroke, because results were imprecise and included studies did not report most of the predefined outcomes (ie, falls, balance, depression or anxiety, poststroke fatigue, and quality of life)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5210 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Lifestyle changes are at the forefront of preventing the disease. This includes advice such as increasing physical activity and having a healthy balanced diet to reduce risk factors. Intermittent fasting (IF) is a popular dietary plan involving restricting caloric intake to certain days in the week such as alternate day fasting and periodic fasting, and restricting intake to a number of hours in a given day, otherwise known as time-restricted feeding. IF is being researched for its benefits and many randomised controlled trials have looked at its benefits in preventing CVD.\nObjectives\nTo determine the role of IF in preventing and reducing the risk of CVD in people with or without prior documented CVD.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted our search on 12 December 2019; we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched three trials registers and searched the reference lists of included papers. Systematic reviews were also viewed for additional studies. There was no language restriction applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing IF to ad libitum feeding (eating at any time with no specific caloric restriction) or continuous energy restriction (CER). Participants had to be over the age of 18 and included those with and without cardiometabolic risk factors. Intermittent fasting was categorised into alternate-day fasting, modified alternate-day fasting, periodic fasting and time-restricted feeding.\nData collection and analysis\nFive review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extraction. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Secondary outcomes include the absolute change in body weight, and glucose. Furthermore, side effects such as headaches and changes to the quality of life were also noted. For continuous data, pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) were calculated. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nOur search yielded 39,165 records after the removal of duplicates. From this, 26 studies met our criteria, and 18 were included in the pooled analysis. The 18 studies included 1125 participants and observed outcomes ranging from four weeks to six months. Of quantitatively analysed data, seven studies compared IF with ab libitum feeding, eight studies compared IF with CER, and three studies compared IF with both ad libitum feeding and CER. Outcomes were reported at short term (≤ 3 months) and medium term (> 3 months to 12 months) follow-up.\nNone of the included studies reported on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or heart failure.\nBody weight was reduced with IF compared to ad libitum feeding in the short term (MD -2.88 kg, 95% CI -3.96 to -1.80; 224 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IF when compared to CER in the short term (MD -0.88 kg, 95% CI -1.76 to 0.00; 719 participants; 10 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and there may be no effect in the medium term (MD -0.56 kg, 95% CI -1.68 to 0.56; 279 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain about the effect of IF on glucose when compared to ad libitum feeding in the short term (MD -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.19; 95 participants; 3 studies; very-low-certainty of evidence) and when compared to CER in the short term: MD -0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.12; 582 participants; 9 studies; very low-certainty; medium term: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.11; 279 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nThe changes in body weight and glucose were not deemed to be clinically significant.\nFour studies reported data on side effects, with some participants complaining of mild headaches. One study reported on the quality of life using the RAND SF-36 score. There was a modest increase in the physical component summary score.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the effects of intermittent fasting on clinical events such as mortality, myocardial infarction and heart failure due to lack of data for these outcomes. The individual meta-analyses show that intermittent fasting may be effective in reducing weight when compared to ad libitum feeding and may be as effective as continuous energy restriction. Despite this, these changes appear to be clinically insignificant at short-term follow-up. The quality of the available evidence is low to very low which means that many areas of uncertainty remain. Further research is needed to understand which patient groups would and would not benefit from intermittent fasting (e.g. patients with diabetes or eating disorders) as well as the effect on longer-term outcomes such as all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We did not find enough good certainty evidence to know whether intermittent fasting could prevent CVD. We found that intermittent fasting may help people to lose more weight than 'eating as usual' (not dieting) but was similar to energy restriction diets. We need further research to test the benefits and potential harms of intermittent fasting, and to test if it might affect how many people die or develop CVD."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5211 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStress urinary incontinence constitutes a significant health and economic burden to society. Traditional suburethral slings are surgical operations used to treat women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of traditional suburethral sling procedures for treating stress urinary incontinence in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP); we handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 27 February 2017) and the reference lists of relevant articles. On 23 January 2019, we updated this search; as a result, several additional reports of studies are awaiting classification.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials that assessed traditional suburethral slings for treating stress or mixed urinary incontinence.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias. When appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated: risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, odds ratio (OR) for continence and cure rates that were expected to be high, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We adopted the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nA total of 34 trials involving 3244 women were included. Traditional slings were compared with 10 other treatments and with each other.\nWe did not identify any trials comparing suburethral slings with no treatment or sham treatment, conservative management, anterior repair, or laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension. Most trials did not distinguish between women having surgery for primary or recurrent incontinence. One trial compared traditional slings with bladder neck needle suspension, and another trial compared traditional slings with single-incision slings. Both trials were too small to be informative.\nTraditional suburethral sling operation versus drugs\nOne small trial compared traditional suburethral sling operations with oxybutynin to treat women with mixed urinary incontinence. This trial did not report any of our GRADE-specific outcomes. It is uncertain whether surgery compared with oxybutynin leads to more women being dry (83% vs 0%; OR 195.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.91 to 3871.03) or having less urgency urinary incontinence (13% vs 43%; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.94) because the quality of this evidence is very low.\nTraditional suburethral sling versus injectables\nOne small trial compared traditional slings with suburethral injectable treatment. The impact of surgery versus injectables is uncertain in terms of the number of continent women (100% were dry with a traditional sling versus 71% with the injectable after the first year; OR 11.57, 95% CI 0.56 to 239.74), the need for repeat surgery for urinary incontinence (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.36) or the occurrence of perioperative complications (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 8.49), as the quality of evidence is very low.\nTraditional suburethral sling versus open abdominal retropubic colposuspension\nEight trials compared slings with open abdominal retropubic colposuspension. Moderate-quality evidence shows that the traditional suburethral sling probably leads to more continent women in the medium term (one to five years) (69% vs 59% after colposuspension: OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.37). High-quality evidence shows that women were less likely to need repeat continence surgery after a traditional sling operation than after colposuspension (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42). We found no evidence of a difference in perioperative complications between the two groups, but the CI was very wide and the quality of evidence was very low (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.86).\nTraditional suburethral sling operation versus mid-urethral slings\nFourteen trials compared traditional sling operations and mid-urethral sling operations. Depending on judgements about what constitutes a clinically important difference between interventions with regard to continence, traditional suburethral slings are probably no better, and may be less effective, than mid-urethral slings in terms of number of women continent in the medium term (one to five years) (67% vs 74%; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.02; n = 458; moderate-quality evidence). One trial reported more continent women with the traditional sling after 10 years (51% vs 32%: OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.61). Mid-urethral slings may be associated with fewer perioperative complications (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.60; low-quality evidence).\nOne type of traditional sling operation versus another type of traditional sling operation\nNine trials compared one type of traditional sling operation with another. The different types of traditional slings, along with the number of different materials used, mean that trial results could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. Complications were reported by two trials - one comparing non-absorbable Goretex with a rectus fascia sling, and the second comparing Pelvicol with a rectus fascial sling. The impact was uncertain due to the very low quality of evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence suggests that women may be more likely to be continent in the medium term (one to five years) after a traditional suburethral sling operation than after colposuspension. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in urinary incontinence after a traditional suburethral sling compared with a mid-urethral sling in the medium term. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as long-term follow-up data were not available from most trials. Long-term follow-up of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing traditional slings with colposuspension and mid-urethral slings is essential. Evidence is insufficient to suggest whether traditional suburethral slings may be better or worse than other management techniques. This review is confined to RCTs and therefore may not identify all of the adverse effects that may be associated with these procedures.\nA brief economic commentary (BEC) identified three eligible economic evaluations, which are not directly comparable due to differences in methods, time horizons, and settings. End users of this review will need to assess the extent to which methods and results of identified economic evaluations may be applicable (or transferable) to their own setting.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "How do traditional slings compare with other surgical or conservative treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI)?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5212 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDysmenorrhoea refers to painful menstrual cramps and is a common gynaecological complaint. Conventional treatments include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), which both reduce myometrial activity (contractions of the uterus). A suggested alternative approach is dietary supplements. We used the term 'dietary supplement' to include herbs or other botanical, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and amino acids. We excluded traditional Chinese medicines.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of dietary supplements for treating dysmenorrhoea.\nSearch methods\nWe searched sources including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO (all from inception to 23 March 2015), trial registries, and the reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of dietary supplements for moderate or severe primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea. We excluded studies of women with an intrauterine device. Eligible comparators were other dietary supplements, placebo, no treatment, or conventional analgesia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse effects. We used a fixed-effect model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We presented data that were unsuitable for analysis either descriptively or in additional tables. We assessed the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.\nMain results\nWe included 27 RCTs (3101 women). Most included studies were conducted amongst cohorts of students with primary dysmenorrhoea in their late teens or early twenties. Twenty-two studies were conducted in Iran and the rest were performed in other middle-income countries. Only one study addressed secondary dysmenorrhoea. Interventions included 12 different herbal medicines (German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla, M recutita, Chamomilla recutita), cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum, C. verum), Damask rose (Rosa damascena), dill (Anethum graveolens), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum), ginger (Zingiber officinale), guava (Psidium guajava), rhubarb (Rheum emodi), uzara (Xysmalobium undulatum), valerian (Valeriana officinalis), and zataria (Zataria multiflora)) and five non-herbal supplements (fish oil, melatonin, vitamins B1 and E, and zinc sulphate) in a variety of formulations and doses. Comparators included other supplements, placebo, no treatment, and NSAIDs.\nWe judged all the evidence to be of low or very low quality. The main limitations were imprecision due to very small sample sizes, failure to report study methods, and inconsistency. For most comparisons there was only one included study, and very few studies reported adverse effects.\nEffectiveness of supplements for primary dysmenorrhoea\nWe have presented pain scores (all on a visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 point scale) or rates of pain relief, or both, at the first post-treatment follow-up.\nSupplements versus placebo or no treatment\nThere was no evidence of effectiveness for vitamin E (MD 0.00 points, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.34; two RCTs, 135 women).\nThere was no consistent evidence of effectiveness for dill (MD -1.15 points, 95% CI −2.22 to −0.08, one RCT, 46 women), guava (MD 0.59, 95% CI −0.13 to 1.31; one RCT, 151 women); one RCT, 73 women), or fennel (MD −0.34 points, 95% CI −0.74 to 0.06; one RCT, 43 women).\nThere was very limited evidence of effectiveness for fenugreek (MD −1.71 points, 95% CI −2.35 to −1.07; one RCT, 101 women), fish oil (MD 1.11 points, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77; one RCT, 120 women), fish oil plus vitamin B1 (MD −1.21 points, 95% CI −1.79 to −0.63; one RCT, 120 women), ginger (MD −1.55 points, 95% CI −2.43 to −0.68; three RCTs, 266 women; OR 5.44, 95% CI 1.80 to 16.46; one RCT, 69 women), valerian (MD −0.76 points, 95% CI −1.44 to −0.08; one RCT, 100 women), vitamin B1 alone (MD −2.70 points, 95% CI −3.32 to −2.08; one RCT, 120 women), zataria (OR 6.66, 95% CI 2.66 to 16.72; one RCT, 99 women), and zinc sulphate (MD −0.95 points, 95% CI −1.54 to −0.36; one RCT, 99 women).\nData on chamomile and cinnamon versus placebo were unsuitable for analysis.\nSupplements versus NSAIDS\nThere was no evidence of any difference between NSAIDs and dill (MD 0.13 points, 95% CI −1.01 to 1.27; one RCT, 47 women), fennel (MD −0.70 points, 95% CI −1.81 to 0.41; one RCT, 59 women), guava (MD 1.19, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.96; one RCT, 155 women), rhubarb (MD −0.20 points, 95% CI −0.44 to 0.04; one RCT, 45 women), or valerian (MD points 0.62 , 95% CI 0.03 to 1.21; one RCT, 99 women),\nThere was no consistent evidence of a difference between Damask rose and NSAIDs (MD −0.15 points, 95% CI −0.55 to 0.25; one RCT, 92 women).\nThere was very limited evidence that chamomile was more effective than NSAIDs (MD −1.42 points, 95% CI −1.69 to −1.15; one RCT, 160 women).\nSupplements versus other supplements\nThere was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between ginger and zinc sulphate (MD 0.02 points, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.62; one RCT, 101 women). Vitamin B1 may be more effective than fish oil (MD −1.59 points, 95% CI −2.25 to −0.93; one RCT, 120 women).\nEffectiveness of supplements for secondary dysmenorrhoea\nThere was no strong evidence of benefit for melatonin compared to placebo for dysmenorrhoea secondary to endometriosis (data were unsuitable for analysis).\nSafety of supplements\nOnly four of the 27 included studies reported adverse effects in both treatment groups. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups but data were too scanty to reach any conclusions about safety.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of any dietary supplement for dysmenorrhoea, and evidence of safety is lacking. However for several supplements there was some low quality evidence of effectiveness and more research is justified.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence was of low or very low quality for all comparisons. The main limitations were imprecision due to very small sample sizes, failure to report study methods, and inconsistency. For most comparisons there was only one included study, and very few included studies reported adverse effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5213 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVitamin D deficiency is common worldwide, contributing to nutritional rickets and osteomalacia which have a major impact on health, growth, and development of infants, children and adolescents. Vitamin D levels are low in breast milk and exclusively breastfed infants are at risk of vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of vitamin D supplementation given to infants, or lactating mothers, on vitamin D deficiency, bone density and growth in healthy term breastfed infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to 29 May 2020 supplemented by searches of clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and citations.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in breastfeeding mother-infant pairs comparing vitamin D supplementation given to infants or lactating mothers compared to placebo or no intervention, or sunlight, or that compare vitamin D supplementation of infants to supplementation of mothers.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 19 studies with 2837 mother-infant pairs assessing vitamin D given to infants (nine studies), to lactating mothers (eight studies), and to infants versus lactating mothers (six studies). No studies compared vitamin D given to infants versus periods of infant sun exposure.\nVitamin D supplementation given to infants: vitamin D at 400 IU/day may increase 25-OH vitamin D levels (MD 22.63 nmol/L, 95% CI 17.05 to 28.21; participants = 334; studies = 6; low-certainty) and may reduce the incidence of vitamin D insufficiency (25-OH vitamin D < 50 nmol/L) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.80; participants = 274; studies = 4; low-certainty). However, there was insufficient evidence to determine if vitamin D given to the infant reduces the risk of vitamin D deficiency (25-OH vitamin D < 30 nmol/L) up till six months of age (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.05; participants = 122; studies = 2), affects bone mineral content (BMC), or the incidence of biochemical or radiological rickets (all very-low certainty). We are uncertain about adverse effects including hypercalcaemia. There were no studies of higher doses of infant vitamin D (> 400 IU/day) compared to placebo.\nVitamin D supplementation given to lactating mothers: vitamin D supplementation given to lactating mothers may increase infant 25-OH vitamin D levels (MD 24.60 nmol/L, 95% CI 21.59 to 27.60; participants = 597; studies = 7; low-certainty), may reduce the incidences of vitamin D insufficiency (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; participants = 512; studies = 5; low-certainty), vitamin D deficiency (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.24; participants = 512; studies = 5; low-certainty) and biochemical rickets (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.44; participants = 229; studies = 2; low-certainty). The two studies that reported biochemical rickets used maternal dosages of oral D3 60,000 IU/day for 10 days and oral D3 60,000 IU postpartum and at 6, 10, and 14 weeks. However, infant BMC was not reported and there was insufficient evidence to determine if maternal supplementation has an effect on radiological rickets (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.31; participants = 536; studies = 3; very low-certainty). All studies of maternal supplementation enrolled populations at high risk of vitamin D deficiency. We are uncertain of the effects of maternal supplementation on infant growth and adverse effects including hypercalcaemia.\nVitamin D supplementation given to infants compared with supplementation given to lactating mothers: infant vitamin D supplementation compared to lactating mother supplementation may increase infant 25-OH vitamin D levels (MD 14.35 nmol/L, 95% CI 9.64 to 19.06; participants = 269; studies = 4; low-certainty). Infant vitamin D supplementation may reduce the incidence of vitamin D insufficiency (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.94; participants = 334; studies = 4) and may reduce vitamin D deficiency (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.72; participants = 334; studies = 4) but the evidence is very uncertain. Infant BMC and radiological rickets were not reported and there was insufficient evidence to determine if maternal supplementation has an effect on infant biochemical rickets. All studies enrolled patient populations at high risk of vitamin D deficiency. Studies compared an infant dose of vitamin D 400 IU/day with varying maternal vitamin D doses from 400 IU/day to > 4000 IU/day. We are uncertain about adverse effects including hypercalcaemia.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor breastfed infants, vitamin D supplementation 400 IU/day for up to six months increases 25-OH vitamin D levels and reduces vitamin D insufficiency, but there was insufficient evidence to assess its effect on vitamin D deficiency and bone health. For higher-risk infants who are breastfeeding, maternal vitamin D supplementation reduces vitamin D insufficiency and vitamin D deficiency, but there was insufficient evidence to determine an effect on bone health. In populations at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D supplementation of infants led to greater increases in infant 25-OH vitamin D levels, reductions in vitamin D insufficiency and vitamin D deficiency compared to supplementation of lactating mothers. However, the evidence is very uncertain for markers of bone health. Maternal higher dose supplementation (≥ 4000 IU/day) produced similar infant 25-OH vitamin D levels as infant supplementation of 400 IU/day. The certainty of evidence was graded as low to very low for all outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "the evidence is currently very uncertain for supplementation of vitamin D for breastfeeding mothers or supplementation of their infants in populations at low risk of vitamin D deficiency. In populations at high risk of vitamin D deficiency, there is low-certainty evidence that vitamin D 400 IU per day given to the infant or higher doses given to the breastfeeding mother may prevent vitamin D deficiency, although effects on bone health are unclear."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5214 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEwing sarcomas are solid tumours of the bone and soft tissue, that usually affect children, adolescents, and young adults. The incidence is about three cases per million a year, with a peak incidence at 12 years of age. Metastatic disease is detected in about 20 % to 30% of people, and is typically found in the lungs, bone, bone marrow, or a combination of these. Presence of metastatic disease at diagnosis (primary metastatic disease) is the most important adverse prognostic factor, and is associated with a five-year survival lower than 30%. High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) is used in various solid tumours with unfavourable prognoses in children, adolescents, and young adults. It has also been used as rescue after multifocal radiation of metastases. The hypothesis is that HDC regimens may overcome the resistance to standard multidrug chemotherapy and improve survival rates.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation compared with conventional chemotherapy in improving event-free survival, overall survival, quality-adjusted survival, and progression-free survival in children, adolescents, and young adults with primary metastatic Ewing sarcoma, and to determine the toxicity of the treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings from major international cancer-related conferences, and ongoing trial registers until January 2020. We also searched reference lists of included articles and review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or (historical) controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing the effectiveness of HDC and AHCT with conventional chemotherapy for children, adolescents, and young adults (younger than 30 years at the date of diagnostic biopsy) with primary metastatic Ewing sarcoma.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified one RCT, which investigated the effects of HDC with AHCT versus conventional chemotherapy with whole lung irradiation (WLI) in people with Ewing sarcoma metastasised to the lungs only at diagnosis. Only a selection of the participants were eligible for our review (N = 267: HDC with AHCT group N = 134; control group N = 133).\nThere may be no difference in event-free survival between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded one level each because of study limitations and imprecision. Overall survival and toxicity were not reported separately for the participants eligible for this review, while quality-adjusted survival and progression-free survival were not reported at all. We did not identify any studies that addressed children, adolescents, and young adults with Ewing sarcoma with metastases to other locations.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people with Ewing sarcoma with primary metastases to locations other than the lungs, there is currently no evidence from RCTs or CCTs to determine the efficacy of HDC with AHCT compared to conventional chemotherapy.\nBased on low-certainty evidence from one study (267 participants), there may be no difference in event-free survival between children, adolescents, and young adults with primary pulmonary metastatic Ewing sarcoma who receive HDC with AHCT and those who receive conventional chemotherapy with WLI.\nFurther high-quality research is needed. Results are anticipated for the EuroEwing 2008R3 study, in which the effects of HDC with treosulfan and melphalan followed by AHCT on survival, in people with Ewing sarcoma with metastatic disease to bone, other sites, or both were explored. Achieving high-quality studies in a selection of people with rare sarcoma requires long-term, multi-centre, international participant inclusion.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We were looking for evidence on whether high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (intravenous infusion of stem cells collected previously from the patient to re-establish bone marrow) improved event-free survival, overall survival, quality-adjusted survival, and progression-free survival better than conventional chemotherapy in children, adolescents, and young adults with primary metastatic Ewing sarcoma (cancer that has spread to other parts of the body at time of diagnosis). We were also looking for adverse effects that occurred because of these treatments."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5215 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of disorders that affects haemoglobin, which causes distorted sickle- or crescent-shaped red blood cells. It is characterized by anaemia, increased susceptibility to infections and episodes of pain. The disease is acquired by inheriting abnormal genes from both parents, the combination giving rise to different forms of the disease. Due to increased erythropoiesis in people with SCD, it is hypothesized that they are at an increased risk for folate deficiency. For this reason, children and adults with SCD, particularly those with sickle cell anaemia, commonly take 1 mg of folic acid orally every day on the premise that this will replace depleted folate stores and reduce the symptoms of anaemia. It is thus important to evaluate the role of folate supplementation in treating SCD.\nObjectives\nTo analyse the efficacy and possible adverse effects of folate supplementation (folate occurring naturally in foods, provided as fortified foods or additional supplements such as tablets) in people with SCD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group’s Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also conducted additional searches in both electronic databases and clinical trial registries.\nDate of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group’s Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 17 November 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, placebo-controlled trials of folate supplementation for SCD.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors assessed We used the standard Cochrane-defined methodological procedures.\nFour review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials and extracted and analysed the data included in the review. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nOne trial, undertaken in 1983, was eligible for inclusion in the review. This was a double-blind placebo-controlled quasi-randomised triaI of supplementation of folic acid in people with SCD. A total of 117 children with homozygous sickle cell (SS) disease aged six months to four years of age participated over a one-year period (analysis was restricted to 115 children).\nSerum folate measures, obtained after trial entry at six and 12 months, were available in 80 of 115 (70%) participants. There were significant differences between the folic acid and placebo groups with regards to serum folate values above 18 µg/L and values below 5 µg/L (low-quality evidence). In the folic acid group, values above 18 µg/L were observed in 33 of 41 (81%) compared to six of 39 (15%) participants in the placebo (calcium lactate) group. Additionally, there were no participants in the folic acid group with serum folate levels below 5 µg/L, whereas in the placebo group, 15 of 39 (39%) participants had levels below this threshold. Haematological indices were measured in 100 of 115 (87%) participants at baseline and at one year. After adjusting for sex and age group, the investigators reported no significant differences between the trial groups with regards to total haemoglobin concentrations, either at baseline or at one year (low-quality evidence). It is important to note that none of the raw data for the outcomes listed above were available for analysis.\nThe proportions of participants who experienced certain clinical events were analysed in all 115 participants, for which raw data were available. There were no statistically significant differences noted; however, the trial was not powered to investigate differences between the folic acid and placebo groups with regards to: minor infections, risk ratio (RR) 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.15) (low-quality evidence); major infections, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.66) (low-quality evidence); dactylitis, RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.27) (low-quality evidence); acute splenic sequestration, RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.57) (low-quality evidence); or episodes of pain, RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.92) (low-quality evidence). However, the investigators reported a higher proportion of repeat dactylitis episodes in the placebo group, with two or more attacks occurring in 10 of 56 participants compared to two of 59 in the folic acid group (P < 0.05).\nGrowth, determined by height-for-age and weight-for-age, as well as height and growth velocity, was measured in 103 of the 115 participants (90%), for which raw data were not available. The investigators reported no significant differences in growth between the two groups.\nThe trial had a high risk of bias with regards to random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data. There was an unclear risk of bias in relation to allocation concealment, outcome assessment, and selective reporting. Finally, There was a low risk of bias with regards to blinding of participants and personnel. Overall the quality of the evidence in the review was low.\nThere were no trials identified for other eligible comparisons, namely: folate supplementation (fortified foods and physical supplementation with tablets) versus placebo; folate supplementation (naturally occurring in diet) versus placebo; folate supplementation (fortified foods and physical supplementation with tablets) versus folate supplementation (naturally occurring in diet).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOne doubIe-blind, placebo-controlled triaI on folic acid supplementation in children with SCD was included in the review. Overall, the trial presented mixed evidence on the review's outcomes. No trials in adults were identified. With the limited evidence provided, we conclude that, while it is possible that folic acid supplementation may increase serum folate levels, the effect of supplementation on anaemia and any symptoms of anaemia remains unclear.\nIf further trials were conducted, these may add evidence regarding the efficacy of folate supplementation. Future trials should assess clinical outcomes such as folate concentration, haemoglobin concentration, adverse effects and benefits of the intervention, especially with regards to SCD-related morbidity. Such trials should include people with SCD of all ages and both sexes, in any setting. To investigate the effects of folate supplementation, trials should recruit more participants and be of longer duration, with long-term follow-up, than the trial currently included in this review. However, we do not envisage further trials of this intervention will be conducted, and hence the review will no longer be regularly updated.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The trial investigators reported that folic acid supplementation led to higher levels of folic acid measured in the blood. However, there were no differences in haemoglobin concentrations at the end of one year.\nThe trial also reported on clinical factors linked to treatment, including growth, major and minor infections, acute splenic sequestration, episodes of bone or abdominal pains. The investigators reported no differences in these outcomes from baseline to the end of the trial; however, the trial was not large enough to detect any possible differences reported between the folic acid group and the placebo group."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5216 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDiarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of hand-washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nIndividually-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand-washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, we pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using the generic inverse variance method and a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 29 RCTs: 13 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,471 participants), 15 community-based trials in LMICs (29,347 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with AIDS in a high-income country (148 participants). All the trials and follow-up assessments were of short-term duration.\nHand-washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevent around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high-income countries (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 9 trials, 4664 participants, high-certainty evidence) and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs, but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; 2 trials, 45,380 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only four trials reported measures of behaviour change, and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand-washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; 3 trials, 1845 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nHand-washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; 9 trials, 15,950 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, six of these nine trials were from Asian settings, with only one trial from South America and two trials from sub-Saharan Africa. In seven trials, soap was provided free alongside hand-washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75; 7 trials, 12,646 participants; education only: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; 2 trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating or cooking, after visiting the toilet, or cleaning the baby's bottom) and increased compliance with hand-hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups compared with the control in community trials (data not pooled: 4 trials, 3591 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nHand-washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among a high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (mean difference −1.68, 95% CI −1.93 to −1.43; 1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hand-washing frequency increased to seven times a day in the intervention group versus three times a day in the control arm in this hospital trial (1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe found no trials evaluating the effects of hand-washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths or cost effectiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHand-washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. The included trials do not provide evidence about the long-term impact of the interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why we did this Cochrane Review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We know that hand washing at appropriate times can prevent diarrhoea, but we do not know how best to encourage the practice. We wanted to find out if programmes and activities that had been studied for this purpose were effective at increasing hand washing and reducing diarrhoea."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5217 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLiver resection is a major surgery with significant mortality and morbidity. Specialists have tested various methods in attempts to limit blood loss, transfusion requirements, and morbidity during elective liver resection. These methods include different approaches (anterior versus conventional approach), use of autologous blood donation, cardiopulmonary interventions such as hypoventilation, low central venous pressure, different methods of parenchymal transection, different methods of management of the raw surface of the liver, different methods of vascular occlusion, and different pharmacological interventions. A surgeon typically uses only one of the methods from each of these seven categories. The optimal method to decrease blood loss and transfusion requirements in people undergoing liver resection is unknown.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different interventions for decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements during elective liver resection.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded to September 2015 to identify randomised clinical trials. We also searched trial registers and handsearched the references lists of identified trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different methods of decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements in people undergoing liver resection.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified trials and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane domains. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method in WinBUGS 1.4, following the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance documents. We calculated the odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for the binary outcomes, mean differences (MD) with 95% CrI for continuous outcomes, and rate ratios with 95% CrI for count outcomes, using a fixed-effect model or random-effects model according to model-fit. We assessed the evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 67 randomised clinical trials involving a total of 6197 participants. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 5771 participants from 64 trials provided data for one or more outcomes included in this review. There was no evidence of differences in most of the comparisons, and where there was, these differences were in single trials, mostly of small sample size. We summarise only the evidence that was available in more than one trial below. Of the primary outcomes, the only one with evidence of a difference from more than one trial under the pair-wise comparison was in the number of adverse events (complications), which was higher with radiofrequency dissecting sealer than with the clamp-crush method (rate ratio 1.85, 95% CrI 1.07 to 3.26; 250 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, the only differences we found from more than one trial under the pair-wise comparison were the following: blood transfusion (proportion) was higher in the low central venous pressure group than in the acute normovolemic haemodilution plus low central venous pressure group (OR 3.19, 95% CrI 1.56 to 6.95; 208 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence); blood transfusion quantity (red blood cells) was lower in the fibrin sealant group than in the control (MD −0.53 units, 95% CrI −1.00 to −0.07; 122 participants; 2; very low-quality evidence); blood transfusion quantity (fresh frozen plasma) was higher in the oxidised cellulose group than in the fibrin sealant group (MD 0.53 units, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.71; 80 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence); blood loss (MD −0.34 L, 95% CrI −0.46 to −0.22; 237 participants; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence), total hospital stay (MD −2.42 days, 95% CrI −3.91 to −0.94; 197 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and operating time (MD −15.32 minutes, 95% CrI −29.03 to −1.69; 192 participants; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence) were lower with low central venous pressure than with control. For the other comparisons, the evidence for difference was either based on single small trials or there was no evidence of differences. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or time needed to return to work.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPaucity of data meant that we could not assess transitivity assumptions and inconsistency for most analyses. When direct and indirect comparisons were available, network meta-analysis provided additional effect estimates for comparisons where there were no direct comparisons. However, the paucity of data decreases the confidence in the results of the network meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence suggests that liver resection using a radiofrequency dissecting sealer may be associated with more adverse events than with the clamp-crush method. Low-quality evidence also suggests that the proportion of people requiring a blood transfusion is higher with low central venous pressure than with acute normovolemic haemodilution plus low central venous pressure; very low-quality evidence suggests that blood transfusion quantity (red blood cells) was lower with fibrin sealant than control; blood transfusion quantity (fresh frozen plasma) was higher with oxidised cellulose than with fibrin sealant; and blood loss, total hospital stay, and operating time were lower with low central venous pressure than with control. There is no evidence to suggest that using special equipment for liver resection is of any benefit in decreasing the mortality, morbidity, or blood transfusion requirements (very low-quality evidence). Radiofrequency dissecting sealer should not be used outside the clinical trial setting since there is low-quality evidence for increased harm without any evidence of benefits. In addition, it should be noted that the sample size was small and the credible intervals were wide, and we cannot rule out considerable benefit or harm with a specific method of liver resection.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There was no evidence of differences in most of the comparisons, and where there was, these differences were in single trials, mostly of small sample size. Such evidence is unreliable. So, we mention only the evidence that was available in more than one trial. Of the primary outcomes, the only one where there was evidence of difference was in the number of adverse events, which was higher with radiofrequency dissecting sealer than with clamp-crush method. Among the secondary outcomes, the only evidence of difference was in the following:\nBlood transfusion (percentage): higher in the low central venous pressure group than in the acute normovolemic haemodilution (diluting the blood by giving fluids during operation) plus low central venous pressure group.\nBlood transfusion amount: lower in the fibrin sealant group (a type of glue applied to the cut surface of the liver) than in the control.\nBlood transfusion (fresh frozen plasma − a component of blood): higher in the oxidised cellulose (another type of glue applied to the cut surface of the liver) group than in the fibrin sealant group.\nBlood loss, total hospital stay, and operating time: lower with the low central venous pressure group than control.\nFor other comparisons, the evidence for difference was based on single small trials, or there was no evidence of differences. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or time needed to return to work. There is no evidence to suggest that using special equipment for liver resection is of any benefit."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5218 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMorphea (morphoea) is an immune-mediated disease in which excess synthesis and deposition of collagen in the skin and underlying connective tissues results in hardened cutaneous areas. Morphea has different clinical features according to the subtype and stage of evolution of the disease. There is currently no consensus on optimal interventions for morphea.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of treatments for people with any form of morphea.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to July 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and five trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of topical, intralesional, or systemic treatments (isolated or combined) in anyone who has been clinically diagnosed by a medical practitioner with any form of morphea. Eligible controls were placebo, no intervention, any other treatment, or different doses or duration of a treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were global improvement of disease activity or damage assessed by a medical practitioner or by participants, and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement of disease activity and improvement of disease damage. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials, with a total of 429 randomised participants, aged between 3 and 76 years. There were juvenile and adult participants; over half were female, and the majority had circumscribed morphea, followed by linear scleroderma. The settings of the studies (where described) included a dermatologic centre, a national laboratory centre, paediatric rheumatology and dermatology centres, and a university hospital or medical centre.\nThe studies evaluated heterogenous therapies for different types of morphea, covering a wide range of comparisons. We were unable to conduct any meta-analyses. Seven studies investigated topical medications, two evaluated intralesional medications, and five investigated systemic medications. The study duration ranged from seven weeks to 15 months from baseline.\nWe present here results for our primary outcomes for our four key comparisons. All of these results are based on low-quality evidence.\nThe included studies were at high risk of performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias.\nGlobal improvement of disease activity or damage after treatment may be higher with oral methotrexate (15 mg/m², maximum 20 mg, once a week, for 12 months or until disease flare) plus oral prednisone (1 mg/kg a day, maximum of 50 mg, in a single morning dose, for three months, and one month with gradually decreased dose until discontinuation) than with placebo plus oral prednisone in children and adolescents with active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea or mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed) (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 4.45; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3; 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT); 70 participants, all juvenile). This outcome was measured 12 months from the start of treatment or until flare of the disease. Data were not available separately for each morphea type. There may be little or no difference in the number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event with oral methotrexate (26/46) or placebo (11/24) (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.04; 1 RCT; 70 participants assessed during the 12-month follow-up). Adverse events related to methotrexate included alopecia, nausea, headache, fatigue and hepatotoxicity, whilst adverse events related to prednisone (given in both groups) included weight gain (more than 5% of body weight) and striae rubrae.\nOne three-armed RCT compared the following treatments: medium-dose (50 J/cm²) UVA-1; low-dose (20 J/cm²) UVA-1; and narrowband UVB phototherapy. There may be little or no difference between treatments in global improvement of disease activity or damage, as assessed through the modified skin score (where high values represent a worse outcome): medium-dose UVA-1 phototherapy versus low-dose UVA-1 group: MD 1.60, 95% CI −1.70 to 4.90 (44 participants); narrowband UVB phototherapy versus medium-dose UVA-1 group: MD −1.70, 95% CI −5.27 to 1.87 (35 participants); and narrowband UVB versus low-dose UVA-1 group: MD −0.10, 95% CI −2.49 to 2.29 (45 participants). This RCT included children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma (with trunk/limb variant and head variant), generalised morphea, or mixed morphea), who received phototherapy five times a week, for eight weeks. Outcomes were measured at eight weeks from the start of treatment.\nSafety data, measured throughout treatment, from the same RCT (62 participants) showed that treatment with UVA-1 phototherapy may cause mild tanning compared to narrowband UVB: narrowband UVB versus medium-dose UVA-1: RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42; 35 participants; narrowband UVB versus low-dose UVA-1: RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.41; 45 participants. However, there may be no difference in the number of participants reporting mild tanning when comparing medium and low dose UVA-1 phototherapy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 44 participants). Transient erythema was reported in three participants with narrowband UVB and no participants in the low- or medium-dose UVA-1 groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to placebo plus oral prednisone, oral methotrexate plus oral prednisone may improve disease activity or damage in juvenile active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea or mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed), but there may be a slightly increased chance of experiencing at least one adverse event.\nWhen medium-dose UVA-1 (50 J/cm²), low-dose UVA-1 (20 J/cm²), and narrowband UVB were compared against each other in treating children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma, generalised morphea and mixed morphea), there may be little or no difference between these treatments on global improvement of disease activity or damage. UVA-1 phototherapy may cause more mild tanning than narrowband UVB, but there may be no difference between medium- and low-dose UVA-1 phototherapy. These results are based on low-quality evidence.\nLimitations of data and analyses include risk of bias and imprecision (small number of participants or events and wide confidence intervals). We encourage multicentre RCTs to increase sample size and evaluate, with validated tools, different treatment responses according to the subtypes of morphea and age groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The results we present in this summary are based on low-quality evidence.\nChildren and teenagers with active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea and mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed) may experience greater improvement of disease activity or damage with oral methotrexate plus prednisone than with placebo plus prednisone. We would expect that out of 100 children and teenagers, 67 would experience improvement with methotrexate, compared with 29 given placebo; this is based on results measured either 12 months after start of treatment or until flare of the disease. In addition, there may be little or no difference in the number of participants experiencing at least one side effect during treatment (such as hair loss, headache, sickness, tiredness, or liver damage) between those given methotrexate and those given placebo. Side effects from prednisone (given in both groups) included weight gain and stretch marks. We would expect that out of 100 children and teenagers, 56 would experience at least one side effect with methotrexate, compared with 46 given placebo.\nChildren and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma, generalised morphea, or mixed morphea) may present similar reduction in disease activity or damage with medium-dose (50 J/cm²) UVA-1, low-dose (20 J/cm²) UVA-1, or narrowband UVB phototherapy. Those treated with medium-dose (50 J/cm²) UVA-1 or low-dose (20 J/cm²) UVA-1 phototherapy may have mild tanning after the treatment compared to those treated with narrowband UVB phototherapy. However, there may be no difference in the number of participants reporting mild tanning when comparing medium- and low-dose UVA-1 phototherapy. Temporary redness was reported in three participants given narrowband UVB and none of the participants in either the low- or medium-dose UVA-1 groups."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5219 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm infants have low plasma levels of erythropoietin (EPO), providing a rationale for the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) to prevent or treat anaemia. Darbepoetin (Darbe) and EPO are currently available ESAs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of late initiation of ESAs, between eight and 28 days after birth, in reducing the use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in preterm or 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 2018, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 5 June 2018), Embase (1980 to 5 June 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 5 June 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 or quasi-randomised controlled trials of late initiation of EPO treatment (started at ≥ eight days of age) versus placebo or no intervention in preterm (< 37 weeks) or low birth weight (< 2500 grams) neonates.\nData collection and analysis\nWe performed data collection and analyses in accordance with the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe include 31 studies (32 comparisons) randomising 1651 preterm infants. Literature searches in 2018 identified one new study for inclusion. No new on-going trials were identified and no studies used darbepoetin.\nMost included trials were of small sample size. The meta-analysis showed a significant effect on the use of one or more RBC transfusions (21 studies (n = 1202); typical risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 0.79; typical risk difference (RD) -0.17, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.12; typical number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 5 to 8). There was moderate heterogeneity for this outcome (RR I² = 66%; RD I² = 58%). The quality of the evidence was very low. We obtained similar results in secondary analyses based on different combinations of high/low doses of EPO and iron supplementation. There was no significant reduction in the total volume (mL/kg) of blood transfused per infant (typical mean difference (MD) -1.6 mL/kg, 95% CI -5.8 to 2.6); 5 studies, 197 infants). There was high heterogeneity for this outcome (I² = 92%). There was a significant reduction in the number of transfusions per infant (11 studies enrolling 817 infants; typical MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06). There was high heterogeneity for this outcome (I² = 94%).\nThree studies including 404 infants reported on retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) (all stages or stage not reported), with a typical RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.64) and a typical RD of 0.09 (95% CI -0.00 to 0.18). There was high heterogeneity for this outcome for both RR (I² = 83%) and RD (I² = 82%). The quality of the evidence was very low.Three trials enrolling 442 infants reported on ROP (stage ≥ 3). The typical RR was 1.73 (95% CI 0.92 to 3.24) and the typical RD was 0.05 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.10). There was no heterogeneity for this outcome for RR (I² = 18%) but high heterogeneity for RD (I² = 79%). The quality of the evidence was very low.There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes including mortality and necrotising enterocolitis. For the outcomes of mortality and necrotising enterocolitis, the quality of the evidence was moderate. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLate administration of EPO reduces the use of one or more RBC transfusions, the number of RBC transfusions per infant (< 1 transfusion per infant) but not the total volume (mL/kg) of RBCs transfused per infant. Any donor exposure is likely not avoided as most studies included infants who had received RBC transfusions prior to trial entry. Late EPO does not significantly reduce or increase any clinically important adverse outcomes except for a trend in increased risk for ROP. Further research of the use of late EPO treatment, to prevent donor exposure, is not indicated. Research efforts should focus on limiting donor exposure during the first few days of life in sick neonates, when RBC requirements are most likely to be required and cannot be prevented by late EPO treatment. The use of satellite packs (dividing one unit of donor blood into many smaller aliquots) may reduce donor exposure.\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": "To date, 1651 infants (between eight and 28 days of age) born preterm have been enrolled in 31 studies of late administration of EPO to reduce the use of red blood cell transfusions and to prevent donor exposure.\nThere were no studies that used darbepoetin."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5220 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 8, 2016.\nHigh grade glioma (HGG) is a rapidly growing brain tumour in the supporting cells of the nervous system, with several subtypes such as glioblastoma (grade IV astrocytoma), anaplastic (grade III) astrocytoma and anaplastic (grade III) oligodendroglioma. Studies have investigated the best strategy to give radiation to people with HGG. Conventional fractionated radiotherapy involves giving a daily radiation dose (called a fraction) of 180 cGy to 200 cGy. Hypofractionated radiotherapy uses higher daily doses, which reduces the overall number of fractions and treatment time. Hyperfractionated radiotherapy which uses a lower daily dose with a greater number of fractions and multiple fractions per day to deliver a total dose at least equivalent to external beam daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in the same time frame. The aim is to reduce the potential for late toxicity. Accelerated radiotherapy (dose escalation) refers to the delivery of multiple fractions per day using daily doses of radiation consistent with external beam daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy doses. The aim is to reduce the overall treatment time; typically, two or three fractions per day may be delivered with a six to eight hour gap between fractions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of postoperative external beam radiation dose escalation in adults with HGG.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid to August 2019 for relevant randomised phase III trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included adults with a pathological diagnosis of HGG randomised to the following external beam radiation regimens: daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy; hypofractionated radiotherapy versus daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy; hyperfractionated radiotherapy versus daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy or accelerated radiotherapy versus daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary outcomes were overall survival and adverse effects. The secondary outcomes were progression free survival and quality of life. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nSince the last version of this review, we identified no new relevant trials for inclusion. We included 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 2062 participants and 1537 in the relevant arms for this review. There was an overall survival benefit for people with HGG receiving postoperative radiotherapy compared to the participants receiving postoperative supportive care. For the four pooled RCTs (397 participants), the overall hazard ratio (HR) for survival was 2.01 favouring postoperative radiotherapy (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 2.55; P < 0.00001; moderate-certainty evidence). Although these trials may not have completely reported adverse effects, they did not note any significant toxicity attributable to radiation. Progression free survival and quality of life could not be pooled due to lack of data.\nOverall survival was similar between hypofractionated and conventional radiotherapy in five trials (943 participants), where the HR was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.17; P = 0.63; very low-certainty evidence. The trials reported that hypofractionated and conventional radiotherapy were well tolerated with mild acute adverse effects. These trials only reported one participant in the hypofractionated arm developing symptomatic radiation necrosis that required surgery. Progression free survival and quality of life could not be pooled due to the lack of data.\nOverall survival was similar between hypofractionated and conventional radiotherapy in the subset of two trials (293 participants) which included participants aged 60 years and older with glioblastoma. For this category, the HR was 1.16 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.46; P = 0.21; high-certainty evidence).\nThere were two trials which compared hyperfractionated radiotherapy versus conventional radiation and one trial which compared accelerated radiotherapy versus conventional radiation. However, the results could not be pooled.\nThe conventionally fractionated radiotherapy regimens were 4500 cGy to 6000 cGy given in 180 cGy to 200 cGy daily fractions, over five to six weeks.\nAll trials generally included participants with World Health Organization (WHO) performance status from 0 to 2 and Karnofsky performance status of 50 and higher.\nThe risk of selection bias was generally low among these RCTs. The number of participants lost to follow-up for the outcome of overall survival was low. Attrition, performance, detection and reporting bias for the outcome of overall survival was low. There was unclear attrition, performance, detection and reporting bias relating to the outcomes of adverse effects, progression free survival and quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPostoperative conventional daily radiotherapy probably improves survival for adults with good performance status and HGG compared to no postoperative radiotherapy.\nHypofractionated radiotherapy has similar efficacy for survival compared to conventional radiotherapy, particularly for individuals aged 60 years and older with glioblastoma.\nThere are insufficient data regarding hyperfractionation versus conventionally fractionated radiation (without chemotherapy) and for accelerated radiation versus conventionally fractionated radiation (without chemotherapy).\nThere are HGG subsets who have poor prognosis even with treatment (e.g. glioblastoma histology, older age and poor performance status). These HGG individuals with poor prognosis have generally been excluded from randomised trials based on poor performance status. No randomised trial has compared comfort measures or best supportive care with an active intervention using radiotherapy or chemotherapy in these people with poor prognosis.\nSince the last version of this review, we found no new relevant studies. The search identified three new trials, but all were excluded as none had a conventionally fractionated radiotherapy arm.\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": "This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 8, 2016. High grade glioma (HGG) is a rapidly growing brain tumour (cancer) in the supporting cells of the nervous system, with several subtypes such as glioblastoma (grade IV astrocytoma), anaplastic (grade III) astrocytoma and anaplastic (grade III) oligodendroglioma. It affects about 5 in 100,000 people per year in Europe and North America. A number of studies have investigated the best strategy to give radiation to people with HGG, this review looks at these studies to see what they found. Due to toxicity, radiation is not given all in one day. In order to balance toxicity and tumour control, smaller doses of radiation are given over several days.\nConventional radiotherapy involves giving daily radiation dose (called a fraction) of 180 cGy to 200 cGy per day. Hypofractionated radiotherapy refers to the use of a higher daily dose of radiation (greater than 200 cGy per day) which typically reduces the overall number of fractions and the overall treatment time.\nHyperfractionated radiotherapy refers to the use of a lower daily dose of radiation (less than 180 cGy per day), a greater number of fractions and multiple fractions delivered per day to deliver a total dose at least equivalent to external beam daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (beam of radiation directed from outside the body), in the same time frame. The aim with this approach is to reduce the potential for late toxicity, which is a side affect occurring more than 3 month after treatment is completed.\nAccelerated radiotherapy (dose escalation) refers to the delivery of multiple fractions per day using daily doses of radiation consistent with external beam daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy doses. The aim is to reduce the overall treatment time; typically, two or three fractions per day may be delivered with a six to eight hour gap between fractions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5221 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the subject of much uncertainty. COPD clinical guidelines currently recommend selective use of ICS. ICS are not recommended as monotherapy for people with COPD, and are only given in combination with long-acting bronchodilators due to greater efficacy of combination therapy. Incorporating and critiquing newly published placebo-controlled trials into the monotherapy evidence base may help to resolve ongoing uncertainties and conflicting findings about their role in this population.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of inhaled corticosteroids, used as monotherapy versus placebo, in people with stable COPD, in terms of objective and subjective outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials comparing any dose of any type of ICS, given as monotherapy, with a placebo control in people with stable COPD. We excluded studies of less than 12 weeks' duration and studies of populations with known bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) or bronchodilator reversibility.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our a priori primary outcomes were 1. exacerbations of COPD and 2. quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 3. all-cause mortality, 4. lung function (rate of decline of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)), 5. rescue bronchodilator use, 6. exercise capacity, 7. pneumonia and 8. adverse events including pneumonia. ]. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nThirty-six primary studies with 23,139 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean age ranged from 52 to 67 years, and females were 0% to 46% of participants. Studies recruited across the severities of COPD. Seventeen studies were of duration longer than three months and up to six months and 19 studies were of duration longer than six months. We judged the overall risk of bias as low.\nLong-term (more than six months) use of ICS as monotherapy reduced the mean rate of exacerbations in those studies where pooling of data was possible (generic inverse variance analysis: rate ratio 0.88 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; I2 = 48%, 5 studies, 10,097 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: mean difference (MD) −0.05 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.02; I2 = 78%, 5 studies, 10,316 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). ICS slowed the rate of decline in quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD −1.22 units/year, 95% CI −1.83 to −0.60; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2507 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; minimal clinically importance difference 4 points). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with COPD (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 16,636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Long-term use of ICS reduced the rate of decline in FEV1 in people with COPD (generic inverse variance analysis: MD 6.31 mL/year benefit, 95% CI 1.76 to 10.85; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 9829 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: 7.28 mL/year, 95% CI 3.21 to 11.35; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 12,502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events: in the long-term studies, the rate of pneumonia was increased in the ICS group, compared to placebo, in studies that reported pneumonia as an adverse event (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; I2 = 55%; 9 studies, 14,831 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was an increased risk of oropharyngeal candidiasis (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.68; 5547 participants) and hoarseness (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.74; 3523 participants). The long-term studies that measured bone effects generally showed no major effect on fractures or bone mineral density over three years. We downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate for imprecision and low for imprecision and inconsistency.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review updates the evidence base for ICS monotherapy with newly published trials to aid the ongoing assessment of their role for people with COPD. Use of ICS alone for COPD likely results in a reduction of exacerbation rates of clinical relevance, probably results in a reduction in the rate of decline of FEV1 of uncertain clinical relevance and likely results in a small improvement in health-related quality of life not meeting the threshold for a minimally clinically important difference. These potential benefits should be weighed up against adverse events (likely to increase local oropharyngeal adverse effects and may increase the risk of pneumonia) and probably no reduction in mortality. Though not recommended as monotherapy, the probable benefits of ICS highlighted in this review support their continued consideration in combination with long-acting bronchodilators. Future research and evidence syntheses should be focused in that area.\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 36 studies, involving 23,139 participants."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5222 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss.\nTopical antiseptics, one of the possible treatments for CSOM, inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antiseptics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antiseptics or their application can cause irritation of the skin of the outer ear, manifesting as discomfort, pain or itching. Some antiseptics (such as alcohol) may have the potential to be toxic to the inner ear (ototoxicity), with a possible increased risk of causing sensorineural hearing loss, dizziness or tinnitus.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of topical antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 4, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 April 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks.\nThe interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure.\nTwo main comparisons were topical antiseptics compared to: a) placebo or no intervention; and b) another topical antiseptic (e.g. topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B).\nWithin each comparison we separated studies where both groups of patients had received topical antiseptics a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of antibiotic treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nOur primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.\nMain results\nFive studies were included. It was not possible to calculate the total number of participants as two studies only provided the number of ears included in the study.\nA. Topical antiseptic (boric acid) versus placebo or no treatment (all patients had aural toileting)\nThree studies compared topical antiseptics with no treatment, with one study reporting results we could use (254 children; cluster-RCT). This compared the instillation of boric acid in alcohol drops versus no ear drops for one month (both arms used daily dry mopping). We made adjustments to the data to account for the intra-cluster correlation. The very low certainty of the evidence means it is uncertain whether or not treatment with an antiseptic leads to an increase in resolution of ear discharge at both four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.16; 174 participants) and at three to four months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.47; 180 participants). This study narratively described no differences in suspected ototoxicity or hearing outcomes between the arms (very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported results for health-related quality of life, adverse effects or serious complications.\nB. Topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B\nTwo studies compared different antiseptics but only one (93 participants), comparing a single instillation of boric acid powder with daily acetic acid ear drops, provided any information for this comparison. The very low certainty of the evidence means that it is uncertain whether more patients had resolution of ear discharge with boric acid powder compared to acetic acid at four weeks (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.53; 93 participants), or whether there was a difference between the arms with respect to ear discomfort due to the low number of reported events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.81; 93 participants). Narratively, the study reported no difference in hearing outcomes between the groups. None of the included studies reported any of the other primary or secondary outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to paucity of the evidence and the very low certainty of that which is available the effectiveness and safety profile of antiseptics in the treatment of CSOM is uncertain.\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": "Due to a lack of trials and the very low certainty of the evidence that is available, the effectiveness of antiseptics in the treatment of CSOM is unclear. Adverse effects were not well reported in the studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5223 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nProbiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed acute infectious diarrhoea.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the trials register of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 17 December 2019, as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 12, 2019), in the Cochrane Library, and reference lists from studies and reviews. We included additional studies identified during external review.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials comparing a specified probiotic agent with a placebo or no probiotic in people with acute diarrhoea that is proven or presumed to be caused by an infectious agent.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were measures of diarrhoea duration (diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours; duration of diarrhoea). Secondary outcomes were number of people hospitalized in community studies, duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies, diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days, and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 82 studies with a total of 12,127 participants. These studies included 11,526 children (age < 18 years) and 412 adults (three studies recruited 189 adults and children but did not specify numbers in each age group). No cluster-randomized trials were included. Studies varied in the definitions used for \"acute diarrhoea\" and \"end of the diarrhoeal illness\" and in the probiotic(s) tested. A total of 53 trials were undertaken in countries where both child and adult mortality was low or very low, and 26 where either child or adult mortality was high.\nRisk of bias was high or unclear in many studies, and there was marked statistical heterogeneity when findings for the primary outcomes were pooled in meta-analysis. Effect size was similar in the sensitivity analysis and marked heterogeneity persisted. Publication bias was demonstrated from funnel plots for the main outcomes.\nIn our main analysis of the primary outcomes in studies at low risk for all indices of risk of bias, no difference was detected between probiotic and control groups for the risk of diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.09; 2 trials, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or for duration of diarrhoea (mean difference (MD) 8.64 hours shorter, 95% CI 29.4 hours shorter to 12.1 hours longer; 6 trials, 3058 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nEffect size was similar and marked heterogeneity persisted in pre-specified subgroup analyses of the primary outcomes that included all studies. These included analyses limited to the probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces boulardii. In six trials (433 participants) of Lactobacillus reuteri, there was consistency amongst findings (I² = 0%), but risk of bias was present in all included studies. Heterogeneity also was not explained by types of participants (age, nutritional/socioeconomic status captured by mortality stratum, region of the world where studies were undertaken), diarrhoea in children caused by rotavirus, exposure to antibiotics, and the few studies of children who were also treated with zinc. In addition, there were no clear differences in effect size for the primary outcomes in post hoc analyses according to decade of publication of studies and whether or not trials had been registered.\nFor other outcomes, the duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies on average was shorter in probiotic groups than in control groups but there was marked heterogeneity between studies (I² = 96%; MD -18.03 hours, 95% CI -27.28 to -8.78, random-effects model: 24 trials, 4056 participants). No differences were detected between probiotic and control groups in the number of people with diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.53; 9 studies, 2928 participants) or in risk of hospitalization in community studies (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.89; 6 studies, 2283 participants).\nNo serious adverse events were attributed to probiotics.\nAuthors' conclusions\nProbiotics probably make little or no difference to the number of people who have diarrhoea lasting 48 hours or longer, and we are uncertain whether probiotics reduce the duration of diarrhoea. This analysis is based on large trials with low risk of bias.\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": "Acute infectious diarrhoea is a major global disease that particularly affects people in low- and middle-income countries. We wanted to know if taking probiotics is helpful in shortening the time taken for symptoms to resolve. We searched for studies that looked at the use of probiotics in people with acute diarrhoea. We looked for studies in which the treatments people received were decided randomly; these usually give reliable evidence."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5224 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nManaged withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal. Comparators were placebo as well as more established approaches to detoxification, such as tapered doses of methadone, adrenergic agonists, buprenorphine and symptomatic medications.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the following databases to December 2016: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials along with prospective controlled cohort studies comparing opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation versus other approaches or different opioid antagonist regimens for withdrawal in opioid-dependent participants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nTen studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 4 prospective cohort studies, involving 955 participants) met the inclusion criteria for the review. We considered 7 of the 10 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one of the domains we assessed.\nNine studies compared an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus a treatment regimen based primarily on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist (clonidine or lofexidine). Other comparisons (placebo, tapered doses of methadone, buprenorphine) made by included studies were too diverse for any meaningful analysis. This review therefore focuses on the nine studies comparing an opioid antagonist (naltrexone or naloxone) plus clonidine or lofexidine versus treatment primarily based on clonidine or lofexidine.\nFive studies took place in an inpatient setting, two studies were in outpatients with day care, two used day care only for the first day of opioid antagonist administration, and one study described the setting as outpatient without indicating the level of care provided.\nThe included studies were heterogeneous in terms of the type of opioid antagonist treatment regimen, the comparator, the outcome measures assessed, and the means of assessing outcomes. As a result, the validity of any estimates of overall effect is doubtful, therefore we did not calculate pooled results for any of the analyses.\nThe quality of the evidence for treatment with an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus an alpha2-adrenergic agonist is very low. Two studies reported data on peak withdrawal severity, and four studies reported data on the average severity over the period of withdrawal. Peak withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists in combination with an adrenergic agonist appears to be more severe than withdrawal managed with clonidine or lofexidine alone, but the average severity over the withdrawal period is less. In some situations antagonist-induced withdrawal may be associated with significantly higher rates of treatment completion compared to withdrawal managed with adrenergic agonists. However, this result was not consistent across studies, and the extent of any benefit is highly uncertain.\nWe could not extract any data on the occurrence of adverse events, but two studies reported delirium or confusion following the first dose of naltrexone. Delirium may be more likely with higher initial doses and with naltrexone rather than naloxone (which has a shorter half-life), but we could not confirm this from the available evidence.\nInsufficient data were available to make any conclusions on the best duration of treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nUsing opioid antagonists plus alpha2-adrenergic agonists is a feasible approach for managing opioid withdrawal. However, it is unclear whether this approach reduces the duration of withdrawal or facilitates transfer to naltrexone treatment to a greater extent than withdrawal managed primarily with an adrenergic agonist.\nA high level of monitoring and support is desirable for several hours following administration of opioid antagonists because of the possibility of vomiting, diarrhoea and delirium.\nUsing opioid antagonists to induce and accelerate opioid withdrawal is not currently an active area of research or clinical practice, and the research community should give greater priority to investigating approaches, such as those based on buprenorphine, that facilitate the transition to sustained-release preparations of naltrexone.\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 10 studies, including six randomised controlled trials (where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) and four prospective cohort studies (where participants could choose which treatment they received) involving 955 opioid-dependent participants. Four of the studies took place in the UK, three in the USA, two in Italy and one in Australia. Nine of the 10 studies compared treatment with an opioid antagonist (naltrexone or naloxone) plus an adrenergic agonist (clonidine or lofexidine) versus a regimen based on clonidine or lofexidine alone. Other comparisons (placebo, reducing doses of methadone, buprenorphine) made by included studies were too diverse for any meaningful analysis.\nFour studies received some financial support from a pharmaceutical company."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5225 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSkin-to-skin care (SSC), often referred to as 'kangaroo care' (KC) due to its similarity with marsupial behaviour of ventral maternal-infant contact, is one non-pharmacological intervention for pain control in infants.\nObjectives\nThe primary objectives were to determine the effect of SSC alone on pain from medical or nursing procedures in neonates compared to no intervention, sucrose or other analgesics, or additions to simple SSC such as rocking; and to determine the effects of the amount of SSC (duration in minutes), method of administration (e.g. who provided the SSC) of SSC in reducing pain from medical or nursing procedures in neonates\nThe secondary objectives were to determine the safety of SSC care for relieving procedural pain in infants; and to compare the SSC effect in different postmenstrual age subgroups of infants.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1); MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 25 February 2016); Embase (1980 to 25 February 2016); and CINAHL (1982 to 25 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.\nSelection criteria\nStudies with randomisation or quasi-randomisation, double- or single-blinded, involving term infants (≥ 37 completed weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) to a maximum of 44 weeks' PMA and preterm infants (< 37 completed weeks PMA) receiving SSC for painful procedures conducted by healthcare professionals.\nData collection and analysis\nThe main outcome measures were physiological or behavioural pain indicators and composite pain scores. A mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model was reported for continuous outcome measures. We included variations on type of tissue-damaging procedure, provider of care, and duration of SSC.\nMain results\nTwenty-five studies (n = 2001 infants) were included. Nineteen studies (n = 1065) used heel lance as the painful procedure, one study combined venepuncture and heel stick (n = 50), three used intramuscular injection (n = 776), one used 'vaccination' (n = 60), and one used tape removal (n = 50). The studies were generally strong and had low or uncertain risk of bias. Blinding of the intervention was not possible, making them subject to high risk, depending on the method of scoring outcomes.\nSeventeen studies (n = 810) compared SSC to a no-treatment control. Although 15 studies measured heart rate during painful procedures, data from only five studies (n = 161) could be combined for a mean difference (MD) of −10.78 beats per minute (95% CI −13.63 to −7.93) favouring SSC. Meta-analysis of four studies (n = 120) showed no difference in heart rate following the painful procedure (MD 0.08, 95% CI −4.39 to 4.55). Two studies (n = 38) reported heart rate variability with no significant differences. Two studies (n = 101) in a meta-analysis on oxygen saturation at 30 and 60 seconds following the painful procedure did not show a difference. Duration of crying meta-analysis was performed on four studies (n = 133): two (n = 33) investigated response to heel lance (MD = −34.16, 95% CI −42.86 to −25.45), and two (n = 100) following IM injection (MD = −8.83, 95% CI −14.63 to −3.02), favouring SSC. Five studies, one consisting of two substudies (n = 267), used the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) as a primary outcome, which favoured SCC at 30 seconds (MD −3.21, 95% CI −3.94 to −2.47), at 60 seconds (3 studies; n = 156) (MD −1.64, 95% CI −2.86 to −0.43), and at 90 seconds (n = 156) (MD −1.28, 95% CI −2.53 to −0.04); but at 120 seconds there was no difference (n = 156) (MD 0.07, 95% CI −1.11 to 1.25). No studies on return of heart rate to baseline level, cortisol levels, and facial actions could be combined for meta-analysis findings.\nEight studies compared SSC to another intervention with or without a no-treatment control. Two cross-over studies (n = 80) compared mother versus other provider (father, another female) on PIPP scores at 30, 60, 90, and 120 seconds with no significant difference. When SSC was compared to other interventions, there were not enough similar studies to pool results in an analysis. One study compared SSC (n = 640) with and without dextrose and found that the combination was most effective and that SSC alone was more effective than dextrose alone. Similarly, in another study SSC was more effective than oral glucose for heart rate (n = 95). SSC either in combination with breastfeeding or alone was favoured over a no-treatment control, but not different to breastfeeding. One study compared SSC alone and in combination with both sucrose and breastfeeding on heart rate (HR), NIPS scores, and crying time (n = 127). The combinations were more effective than SSC alone for NIPS and crying. Expressed breast milk was compared to SSC in one study (n = 50) and found both equally effective on PIPP scores. There were not enough participants with similar outcomes and painful procedures to compare age groups or duration of SSC. No adverse events were reported in any of the studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSSC appears to be effective as measured by composite pain indicators with both physiological and behavioural indicators and, independently, using heart rate and crying time; and safe for a single painful procedure. Purely behavioural indicators tended to favour SSC but with facial actions there is greater possibility of observers not being blinded. Physiological indicators were mixed although the common measure of heart rate favoured SSC. Two studies compared mother-providers to others, with non-significant results. There was more heterogeneity in the studies with behavioural or composite outcomes. There is a need for replication studies that use similar, clearly defined outcomes. Studies examining optimal duration of SSC, gestational age groups, repeated use, and long-term effects of SSC are needed. Of interest would be to study synergistic effects of SSC with other interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Kangaroo care appears to reduce the pain response to, and recovery from, these frequent procedures, although few studies could be combined to provide strong evidence. As far as it has been reported, skin-to-skin care is safe. Although it appears that skin-to-skin care is effective, the size of the benefit remains uncertain."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5226 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLow cost, non-invasive alterations in lifestyle are frequently recommended by healthcare professionals or those presenting with incontinence. However, such recommendations are rarely based on good evidence.\nObjectives\nThe objective of the review was to determine the effectiveness of specific lifestyle interventions (i.e. weight loss; dietary changes; fluid intake; reduction in caffeinated, carbonated and alcoholic drinks; avoidance of constipation; stopping smoking; and physical activity) in the management of adult urinary incontinence.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 3 July 2013), and the reference lists of relevant articles. We incorporated the results of these searches fully in the review. We undertook an updated search of the Specialised Register, which now includes searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, on 27 October 2014; potentially eligible studies from this search are currently awaiting classification.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised studies of community-based lifestyle interventions compared with no treatment, other conservative therapies, or pharmacological interventions for the treatment of urinary incontinence in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials. Data were combined in a meta-analysis when appropriate. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 11 trials in the review, involving a total of 5974 participants.\nFour trials involving 4701 women compared weight loss programmes with a control intervention. Low quality evidence from one trial suggested that more women following weight loss programmes reported improvement in symptoms of incontinence at six months (163/214 (76%) versus 49/90 (54%), risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.71), and this effect was sustained at 18 months (N = 291, 75% versus 62%, RR not estimable, reported P value 0.02). No data were available for self-reported cure and quality of life. One of the weight loss trials involving 1296 women reported very low quality evidence for a reduction in weekly urinary incontinence a mean of 2.8 years after following a lifestyle weight loss intervention that had been compared with a pharmacological weight loss intervention.\nThree trials involving 181 women and 11 men compared change in fluid intake with no change. Limited, very low quality evidence suggested that symptom-specific quality of life scores improved when fluid intake was reduced, although some people reported headaches, constipation or thirst. A further three trials involving 160 women and nine men compared reduction in caffeinated drinks with no change, and one trial involving 42 women compared a soy-rich diet with soy-free diet. However, it was not possible to reach any conclusions about the effects of these changes, due to methodological limitations, that resulted in very low quality evidence.\nAdverse effects appeared relatively uncommon for all interventions studied.\nAll included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias across all bias parameters, but most notably for allocation concealment. The main factors for our downgrading of the evidence were risk of bias, indirect evidence (less than 12 months of follow-up; and not all participants having confirmed urinary incontinence at baseline in some studies), and imprecise results with wide confidence intervals.\nOther interventions such as reduction in consumption of sweetened fizzy or diet drinks; reduction in alcohol consumption; avoiding constipation; smoking cessation; restricting strenuous physical forces; or reducing high levels of, or increasing low levels of, physical activity, could not be assessed in this review, as no evidence from randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials was available.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence for the effect of weight loss on urinary incontinence is building and should be a research priority. Generally, there was insufficient evidence to inform practice reliably about whether lifestyle interventions are helpful in the treatment of urinary incontinence.\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": "Urinary incontinence imposes a considerable burden on individuals and on society. Although a range of treatments is available, alterations in lifestyle are frequently recommended for the treatment of urinary incontinence, as they are relatively low in cost and have few unwanted side-effects. Advice commonly given includes losing weight, changes in diet, adjusting volume of fluid intake, decreasing caffeine or alcohol consumption, avoiding constipation and straining (when passing faeces), stopping smoking, and being more physically active - though restricting excessive heavy activity."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5227 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients having cataract surgery have often earlier undergone a trabeculectomy for glaucoma. However, cataract surgery may be associated with failure of the previous glaucoma surgery and antimetabolites may be used with cataract surgery to prevent such failure. There is no systematic review on whether antimetabolites with cataract surgery prevent failure of a previous trabeculectomy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antimetabolites with cataract surgery on functioning of a previous trabeculectomy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to June 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 10 June 2014. We also searched the Science Citation Index database (July 2013) and reference lists of potentially relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antimetabolites with cataract surgery in people with a functioning trabeculectomy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts from the electronic searches. Two review authors independently assessed relevant full-text articles and entered data.\nMain results\nWe identified no RCTs to test the effectiveness of antimetabolites with cataract surgery in individuals with the intention of preventing failure of a previous trabeculectomy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are no RCTs of antimetabolites with cataract surgery in people with a functioning trabeculectomy. Appropriately powered RCTs are needed of antimetabolites during cataract surgery in patients with a functioning trabeculectomy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to 10 June 2014."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5228 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThalassemia syndromes are inherited hemoglobin disorders that result when the synthesis of normal hemoglobin is lacking or significantly reduced. For people with thalassemia, long-term red blood cell transfusion remains the mainstay of therapy, which may lead to iron overload causing severe complications and damage in different body organs. Long-term iron chelation therapy is essential for people with thalassemia to minimize the ongoing iron-loading process. In addition, suboptimal adherence can increase adverse events associated with iron overload and result in increased morbidity, mortality, healthcare utilization and cost of care.\nObjectives\nTo identify and assess the effects of computer and mobile technology interventions designed to facilitate medication adherence and disease management in individuals with thalassemia, including:\n- evaluating the effects of using computer and mobile technology interventions for medication adherence and disease management on health and behavioral outcomes;\n- identifying and assessing the effects of computer and mobile technology interventions specific to different age groups (children, adolescents and adults) and type of modality (e.g. cell phone, the Internet).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Web of Science Science & Social Sciences Conference Proceedings Indexes, IEEE Xplore and ongoing trial databases (22 February 2018). We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group’s Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (20 June 2019). We also searched for unpublished work in the abstract book of nine major conferences in the related field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing single- or multi-component interventions versus no intervention, placebo or standard care, with adherence to iron chelation as the primary outcome were eligible for inclusion. Non-randomized studies of interventions, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted-time-series studies were also eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nThree authors independently assessed study eligibility. If we had included any studies, we would have independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data; we planned to assess the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to lack of evidence, we cannot comment on the efficacy or effectiveness of computer and mobile technology intervention strategies to promote disease management and adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with thalassemia.\nWe concluded that RCTs are needed to examine a variety of computer and mobile technology intervention strategies that may be useful for promoting disease management and increasing adherence to iron chelation therapy in individuals with thalassemia.\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 for both randomized and non-randomized studies, and found none which were eligible for inclusion."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5229 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a progressive and common disease that affects the superficial and deep venous systems of the lower limbs. CVI is characterised by valvular incompetence, reflux, venous obstruction or a combination of these symptoms, with consequent distal venous hypertension. Clinical manifestations of CVI include oedema, pain, skin changes, ulcerations and dilated skin veins in the lower limbs. It places a large financial burden on health systems. There is a wide variety of treatment options for CVI, ranging from surgery and medication to compression and physiotherapy. Balneotherapy (treatments involving water) may be a relatively cheap and efficient way to deliver physiotherapy to people with CVI. This is an update of a review first published in 2019.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of balneotherapy for the treatment of people with chronic venous insufficiency.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing balneotherapy to no treatment or other types of treatment for CVI. We also included studies that used a combination of treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. disease severity, 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and 3. adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes were 1. pain, 2. oedema, 3. leg ulcer incidence and 4. skin pigmentation changes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included nine randomised controlled trials involving 1126 participants with CVI. Seven studies evaluated balneotherapy versus no treatment, one study evaluated balneotherapy versus a phlebotonic drug (melilotus officinalis), and one study evaluated balneotherapy versus dryland exercises. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence due to a lack of blinding of participants and investigators, participant-reported outcomes and imprecision.\nBalneotherapy versus no treatment\nBalneotherapy compared to no treatment probably results in slightly improved disease severity signs and symptoms scores as assessed by the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS; mean difference (MD) −1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) −3.02 to −0.49; 3 studies, 671 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nBalneotherapy compared to no treatment may improve HRQoL as assessed by the Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality of Life Questionnaire 2 (CIVIQ2) at three months, but we are very uncertain about the results (MD −10.46, 95% CI −19.21 to −1.71; 2 studies, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention may improve HRQoL at 12 months (MD −4.48, 95% CI −8.61 to −0.36; 2 studies, 417 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if the intervention has an effect at six months (MD −2.99, 95% CI −6.53 to 0.56; 2 studies, 436 participants; low-certainty evidence) or nine months (MD −6.40, 95% CI −13.84 to 1.04; 1 study, 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nBalneotherapy compared with no treatment may have little or no effect on the occurrence of adverse effects. The main adverse effects were thromboembolic events (odds radio (OR) 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.42; 3 studies, 584 participants; low-certainty evidence), erysipelas (OR 2.58, 95% CI 0.65 to 10.22; 2 studies, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence) and palpitations (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.52; 1 study, 59 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any serious adverse effects.\nBalneotherapy compared with no treatment may improve pain scores slightly at three months (MD −1.12, 95% CI −1.35 to −0.88; 2 studies, 354 participants; low-certainty evidence); and six months (MD −1.02, 95% CI −1.25 to −0.78; 2 studies, 352 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nBalneotherapy compared with no treatment may have little or no effect on oedema (measured by leg circumference) at 24 days to three months, but we are very uncertain about the results (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32 cm, 95% CI −0.70 to 1.34; 3 studies, 369 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nBalneotherapy compared with no treatment may have little or no effect on the incidence of leg ulcers at 12 months, but we are very uncertain about the results (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.14; 2 studies, 449 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nBalneotherapy compared with no treatment may slightly reduce skin pigmentation changes as measured by the pigmentation index at 12 months (MD −3.60, 95% CI −5.95 to −1.25; 1 study, 59 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nBalneotherapy versus melilotus officinalis\nFor the comparison balneotherapy versus a phlebotonic drug (melilotus officinalis), there was little or no difference in pain symptoms (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.87; 1 study, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or oedema (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.27; 1 study, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but we are very uncertain about the results. The study reported no other outcomes of interest.\nBalneotherapy versus dryland exercise\nFor the comparison balneotherapy versus dryland exercise, evidence from one study showed that balneotherapy may improve HRQoL as assessed by the Varicose Vein Symptom Questionnaire (VVSymQ), but we are very uncertain about the results (MD −3.00, 95% CI −3.80 to −2.20; 34 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Balneotherapy compared with dryland exercises may reduce oedema (leg volume) after five sessions of treatment (right leg: MD −840.70, 95% CI −1053.26 to −628.14; left leg: MD −767.50, 95% CI −910.07 to −624.93; 1 study, 34 participants, low-certainty evidence). The study reported no other outcomes of interest.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor the comparison balneotherapy versus no treatment, we identified moderate-certainty evidence that the intervention improves disease severity signs and symptoms scores slightly, low-certainty evidence that it improves pain and skin pigmentation changes, and very low-certainty evidence that it improves HRQoL. Balneotherapy compared with no treatment made little or no difference to adverse effects, oedema or incidence of leg ulcers. Evidence comparing balneotherapy with other interventions was very limited. To ensure adequate comparison between trials, future trials should standardise measurements of outcomes (e.g. disease severity signs and symptoms score, HRQoL, pain and oedema) and follow-up time points.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for studies that examined balneotherapy compared with no treatment or other treatments in people with chronic venous insufficiency. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5230 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nProstaglandin E1 (PGE1) is used to keep the ductus arteriosus patent and can be life-saving in neonates with ductal-dependent cardiac lesions. PGE1 is used to promote mixing of pulmonary and systemic blood flow or improve pulmonary or systemic circulations, prior to balloon atrial septostomy or surgery. PGE1 therapy may cause several short-term and long-term adverse effects. The efficacy and safety of PGE1 in neonates with ductal-dependent cardiac lesions has not been systematically reviewed.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of both short-term (< 120 hours) and long-term (≥120 hours) PGE1 therapy in maintaining patency of the ductus arteriosus and decreasing mortality in ductal-dependent cardiac lesions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the literature in October 2017, using the search strategy recommended by Cochrane Neonatal. We searched electronic databases (CENTRAL (in the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase); abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies; websites for registered trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com; and in the reference list of identified articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized or quasi-randomized trials using PGE1 at any dose or duration to maintain ductal patency in term or late preterm (≥ 34 weeks' gestation) infants with ductal-dependent cardiac lesions and which reported effectiveness and safety in the short term or long term.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard Cochrane methods for conducting a systematic review. Two review authors (SA and MP) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy to determine eligibility for inclusion. We obtained the full-text version if eligibility could not be done reliably by title and abstract. We resolved any differences by discussion. We designed electronic forms for trial inclusion/exclusion, data extraction, and for requesting additional published information from authors of the original reports.\nMain results\nOur search did not identify any completed or ongoing trials that met our inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence from randomized controlled trials to determine the safety and efficacy of PGE1 in neonates with ductal-dependent cardiac lesions. Evidence from observational trials have informed clinical practice on the use of PGE, which is now considered the standard of care for ductal-dependent cardiac lesions. It is unlikely that randomized controlled studies will be performed for this indication but comparative efficacy of newer formulations of PGE1, different doses of PGE1 and studies comparing PGE with PDA stents or other measures to keep the ductus open may be ethical and necessary.\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 quality of evidence could not be assessed as we found no randomized studies for inclusion in this review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5231 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013. The conclusions of this review have not changed from the 2013 publication. People with chronic non-cancer pain who are prescribed and are taking opioids can have a history of long-term, high-dose opioid use without effective pain relief. In those without good pain relief, reduction of prescribed opioid dose may be the desired and shared goal of both patient and clinician. Simple, unsupervised reduction of opioid use is clinically challenging, and very difficult to achieve and maintain.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness of different methods designed to achieve reduction or cessation of prescribed opioid use for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults compared to controls.\nSearch methods\nFor this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in January 2017, as well as bibliographies and citation searches of included studies. We also searched one trial registry for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nIncluded studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing opioid users receiving an intervention with a control group receiving treatment as usual, active control, or placebo. The aim of the study had to include a treatment goal of dose reduction or cessation of opioid medication.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We sought data relating to prescribed opioid use, adverse events of opioid reduction, pain, and psychological and physical function. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, however, due to the heterogeneity of studies, we were unable to combine outcomes in a meta-analysis and therefore we did not assess the evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nThree studies are new to this update, resulting in five included studies in total (278 participants). Participants were primarily women (mean age 49.63 years, SD = 11.74) with different chronic pain conditions. We judged the studies too heterogeneous to pool data in a meta-analysis, so we have summarised the results from each study qualitatively. The studies included acupuncture, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy interventions aimed at reducing opioid consumption, misuse of opioids, or maintenance of chronic pain management treatments. We found mixed results from the studies. Three of the five studies reported opioid consumption at post-treatment and follow-up. Two studies that delivered 'Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement' or 'Therapeutic Interactive Voice Response' found a significant difference between groups at post-treatment and follow-up in opioid consumption. The remaining study found reduction in opioid consumption in both treatment and control groups, and between-group differences were not significant. Three studies reported adverse events related to the study and two studies did not have study-related adverse events. We also found mixed findings for pain intensity and physical functioning. The interventions did not show between-group differences for psychological functioning across all studies. Overall, the risk of bias was mixed across studies. All studies included sample sizes of fewer than 100 and so we judged all studies as high risk of bias for that category.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence for the efficacy or safety of methods for reducing prescribed opioid use in chronic pain. There is a small number of randomised controlled trials investigating opioid reduction, which means our conclusions are limited regarding the benefit of psychological, pharmacological, or other types of interventions for people with chronic pain trying to reduce their opioid consumption. The findings to date are mixed: there were reductions in opioid consumption after intervention, and often in control groups too.\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 were not able to judge the quality of evidence included in this review because the studies were so different and could not be combined."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5232 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCarotid patch angioplasty may reduce the risk of acute occlusion or long-term restenosis of the carotid artery and subsequent ischaemic stroke in people undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 1995 and updated in 2008.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of routine or selective carotid patch angioplasty with either a venous patch or a synthetic patch compared with primary closure in people undergoing CEA. We wished to test the primary hypothesis that carotid patch angioplasty results in a lower rate of severe arterial restenosis and therefore fewer recurrent strokes and stroke-related deaths, without a considerable increase in perioperative complications.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registries in September 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing carotid patch angioplasty with primary closure in people undergoing CEA.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias; extracted data; and determined the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes of interest included stroke, death, significant complications related to surgery, and artery restenosis or occlusion during the perioperative period (within 30 days of the operation) or during long-term follow-up.\nMain results\nWe included 11 trials involving 2100 participants undergoing 2304 CEA operations. The quality of trials was generally poor. Follow-up varied from hospital discharge to five years. Compared with primary closure, carotid patch angioplasty may make little or no difference to reduction in risk of any stroke during the perioperative period (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.03; P = 0.063; 8 studies, 1769 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may lower the risk of any stroke during long-term follow-up (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90; P = 0.022; 7 studies, 1332 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In the included studies, carotid patch angioplasty resulted in a lower risk of ipsilateral stroke during the perioperative period (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.63; P = 0.001; 7 studies, 1201 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and during long-term follow-up (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.63; P = 0.001; 6 studies, 1141 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention was associated with a reduction in the risk of any stroke or death during long-term follow-up (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; P = 0.003; 6 studies, 1019 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, the included studies suggest that carotid patch angioplasty may reduce the risk of perioperative arterial occlusion (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.41; P < 0.0001; 7 studies, 1435 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce the risk of restenosis during long-term follow-up (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; P < 0.00001; 8 studies, 1719 participants; low-certainty evidence). The studies recorded very few arterial complications, including haemorrhage, infection, cranial nerve palsies and pseudo-aneurysm formation, with either patch or primary closure. We found no correlation between the use of patch angioplasty and the risk of either perioperative or long-term stroke-related death or all-cause death rates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared with primary closure, carotid patch angioplasty may reduce the risk of perioperative arterial occlusion and long-term restenosis of the operated artery. It would appear to reduce the risk of ipsilateral stroke during the perioperative and long-term period and reduce the risk of any stroke in the long-term when compared with primary closure. However, the evidence is uncertain due to the limited quality of included trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to September 2021."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5233 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPsychotic disorders can lead some people to become agitated. Characterised by restlessness, excitability and irritability, this can result in verbal and physically aggressive behaviour - and both can be prolonged. Aggression within the psychiatric setting imposes a significant challenge to clinicians and risk to service users; it is a frequent cause for admission to inpatient facilities. If people continue to be aggressive it can lengthen hospitalisation. Haloperidol is used to treat people with long-term aggression.\nObjectives\nTo examine whether haloperidol alone, administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously, is an effective treatment for long-term/persistent aggression in psychosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2011 and April 2015).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) or double blind trials (implying randomisation) with useable data comparing haloperidol with another drug or placebo for people with psychosis and long-term/persistent aggression.\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author (AK) extracted data. For dichotomous data, one review author (AK) calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effect model. One review author (AK) assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe have no good-quality evidence of the absolute effectiveness of haloperidol for people with long-term aggression. One study randomising 110 chronically aggressive people to three different antipsychotic drugs met the inclusion criteria. When haloperidol was compared with olanzapine or clozapine, skewed data (n=83) at high risk of bias suggested some advantage in terms of scale scores of unclear clinical meaning for olanzapine/clozapine for 'total aggression'. Data were available for only one other outcome, leaving the study early. When compared with other antipsychotic drugs, people allocated to haloperidol were no more likely to leave the study (1 RCT, n=110, RR 1.37, CI 0.84 to 2.24, low-quality evidence). Although there were some data for the outcomes listed above, there were no data on most of the binary outcomes and none on service outcomes (use of hospital/police), satisfaction with treatment, acceptance of treatment, quality of life or economics.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOnly one study could be included and most data were heavily skewed, almost impossible to interpret and oflow quality. There were also some limitations in the study design with unclear description of allocation concealment and high risk of bias for selective reporting, so no firm conclusions can be made. This review shows how trials in this group of people are possible - albeit difficult. Further relevant trials are needed to evaluate use of haloperidol in treatment of long-term/persistent aggression in people living with psychosis.\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 experiencing distressing delusions and hallucinations can often become agitated and aggressive. The antipsychotic drug haloperidol is widely used for the treatment of schizophrenia and psychosis-induced agitation despite the possibility it can cause a number of serious side effects such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness, restlessness and muscle spasms."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5234 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDelayed recovery of urinary continence is a major adverse effect of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in men undergoing prostate cancer treatment. To address this issue, a number of surgical techniques have been designed to reconstruct the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter, which is responsible for urinary continence after removal of the prostate; however, it is unclear how well they work.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of posterior musculofascial reconstruction RALP compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 12 March 2021. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were randomized to undergo variations of posterior musculofascial reconstruction RALP versus no posterior reconstruction during RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery at six and twelve months after surgery, potency recovery twelve months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOur search identified 13 records of eight unique RCTs, of which six were published studies and two were abstract proceedings. We included 1085 randomized participants, of whom 963 completed the trials (88.8%). All participants had either cT1c or cT2 or cT3a disease, with a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 8.15 ng/mL.\nPrimary outcomes\nPosterior reconstruction RALP (PR-RALP) may improve urinary continence one week after catheter removal compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.73; I2 = 42%; studies = 5, participants = 498; low CoE) although the CI also includes the possibility of no effect. Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 84 more men per 1000 (33 fewer to 244 more) reporting urinary continence recovery.\nPosterior reconstruction may have little to no effect on urinary continence three months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14; I2 = 67%; studies = 6, participants = 842; low CoE). Assuming 701 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 14 fewer men per 1000 (112 fewer to 98 more) reporting urinary continence after three months.\nPR-RALP probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.92; I2 = 0%; studies = 6, participants = 835; moderate CoE). Assuming 25 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP experience a serious adverse event at this time point, this corresponds to six fewer men per 1000 (17 fewer to 23 more) reporting serious adverse events.\nSecondary outcomes\nPR-RALP may result in little to no difference in recovery of continence 12 months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.07; I2 = 25%; studies = 3, participants = 602; low CoE). Assuming 918 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 18 more men per 1000 (18 fewer to 64 more) reporting urinary continence recovery.\nWe are very uncertain about the effects of PR-RALP on recovery of potency 12 months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26; I2 = 3%; studies = 2, participants = 308; very low CoE). Assuming 433 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are potent at this time point, this corresponds to nine more men per 1000 (78 fewer to 113 more) reporting potency recovery.\nPR-RALP may result in little to no difference in positive surgical margins compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.33; I2 = 50%; studies = 3, participants = 517; low CoE). Assuming 130 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have a positive surgical margin, this corresponds to 31 more men per 1000 (46 fewer to 173 more) reporting positive surgical margins.\nPR-RALP may result in little to no difference in biochemical recurrence compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.52; I2 = 0%; studies = 2, participants = 468; low CoE). Assuming 70 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have experienced biochemical recurrence at this time point, this corresponds to 25 more men per 1000 (18 fewer to 107 more) reporting biochemical recurrence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found evidence that PR-RALP may improve early continence one week after catheter removal but not thereafter. Meanwhile, adverse event rates are probably not impacted and surgical margins rates are likely similar. This review was unable to determine if or how these findings may be impacted by the person's age, nerve-sparing status, or clinical stage. Study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency lowered the certainty of evidence for the outcomes assessed.\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": "Urologists often use a robot to remove the prostate in men with prostate cancer. After surgery, most men leak urine for some time. This problem is called incontinence and usually improves six to 12 months after surgery in most men. However, it can be very bothersome during this time."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5235 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory infections (ARIs) are by far the most common reason for prescribing an antibiotic in primary care, even though the majority of ARIs are of viral or non-severe bacterial aetiology. It follows that in many cases antibiotic use will not be beneficial to a patient's recovery but may expose them to potential side effects. Furthermore, limiting unnecessary antibiotic use is a key factor in controlling antibiotic resistance. One strategy to reduce antibiotic use in primary care is point-of-care biomarkers. A point-of-care biomarker (test) of inflammation identifies part of the acute phase response to tissue injury regardless of the aetiology (infection, trauma, or inflammation) and may be used as a surrogate marker of infection, potentially assisting the physician in the clinical decision whether to use an antibiotic to treat ARIs. Biomarkers may guide antibiotic prescription by ruling out a serious bacterial infection and help identify patients in whom no benefit from antibiotic treatment can be anticipated. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of point-of-care biomarker tests of inflammation to guide antibiotic treatment in people presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infections in primary care settings regardless of patient age.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2022), Embase (1974 to 14 June 2022), CINAHL (1981 to 14 June 2022), Web of Science (1955 to 14 June 2022), and LILACS (1982 to 14 June 2022). We also searched three trial registries (10 December 2021) for completed and ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care patients with ARIs that compared the use of point-of-care biomarkers with standard care. We included trials that randomised individual participants, as well as trials that randomised clusters of patients (cluster-RCTs).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data on the following primary outcomes: number of participants given an antibiotic prescription at index consultation and within 28 days follow-up; participant recovery within seven days follow-up; and total mortality within 28 days follow-up. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used random-effects meta-analyses when feasible. We further analysed results with considerable heterogeneity in prespecified subgroups of individual and cluster-RCTs.\nMain results\nWe included seven new trials in this update, for a total of 13 included trials. Twelve trials (10,218 participants in total, 2335 of which were children) evaluated a C-reactive protein point-of-care test, and one trial (317 adult participants) evaluated a procalcitonin point-of-care test. The studies were conducted in Europe, Russia, and Asia. Overall, the included trials had a low or unclear risk of bias. However all studies were open-labelled, thereby introducing high risk of bias due to lack of blinding.\nThe use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests to guide antibiotic prescription likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, from 516 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group to 397 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.86; 12 trials, 10,218 participants; I² = 79%; moderate-certainty evidence).\nOverall, use of C-reactive protein tests also reduce the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription within 28 days follow-up (664 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group versus 538 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86; 7 trials, 5091 participants; I² = 29; high-certainty evidence).\nThe prescription of antibiotics as guided by C-reactive protein tests likely does not reduce the number of participants recovered, within seven or 28 days follow-up (567 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the control group versus 584 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (recovery within seven days follow-up: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) (recovery within 28 days follow-up: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of C-reactive protein tests may not increase total mortality within 28 days follow-up, from 1 death per 1000 participants in the control group to 0 deaths per 1000 participants in the intervention group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.92; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain as to whether procalcitonin affects any of the primary or secondary outcomes because there were few participants, thereby limiting the certainty of evidence.\nWe assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate to high according to GRADE for the primary outcomes for C-reactive protein test, except for mortality, as there were very few deaths, thereby limiting the certainty of the evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests as an adjunct to standard care likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription in primary care patients who present with symptoms of acute respiratory infection. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests likely does not affect recovery rates. It is unlikely that further research will substantially change our conclusion regarding the reduction in number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, although the size of the estimated effect may change.\nThe use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests may not increase mortality within 28 days follow-up, but there were very few events. Studies that recorded deaths and hospital admissions were performed in children from low- and middle-income countries and older adults with comorbidities.\nFuture studies should focus on children, immunocompromised individuals, and people aged 80 years and above with comorbidities. More studies evaluating procalcitonin and potential new biomarkers as point-of-care tests used in primary care to guide antibiotic prescription are needed.\nFurthermore, studies are needed to validate C-reactive protein decision algorithms, with a specific focus on potential age group differences.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why do we need to investigate whether tests help doctors to decide on antibiotics?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "No test can provide absolute certainty regarding when to use antibiotics, but correctly used biomarkers could help doctors make the right decision about when to prescribe antibiotics. We investigated if biomarkers as point-of-care tests help doctors reduce antibiotic prescriptions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5236 | [
{
"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: \"Fatigue\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "People who received flexibility exercise training were 4% better (ranging from 13% better to 5% worse).\n• People who had flexibility training rated their fatigue as 67 points.\n• People who had aerobic training rated their fatigue as 71 points."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5237 | [
{
"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 should happen next?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Studies with larger sample sizes and fewer risks of bias should be carried out, with head-to-head comparisons. Longer-term outcomes need to be addressed to establish whether the effect is transient or durable. Trials should better report any harms experienced by participants during the trial. In addition, a network meta-analysis of psychopharmacological treatment in panic disorder will likely shed further light on this compelling issue, also being able to provide more information with regard to comparative efficacy."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5239 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic T cell-mediated disease, which can cause significant pain, particularly in its erosive or ulcerative forms. As pain is the indication for treatment of OLP, pain resolution is the primary outcome for this review. This review is an update of a version last published in 2011, but focuses on the evidence for corticosteroid treatment only. A second review considering non-corticosteroid treatments is in progress.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of corticosteroids, in any formulation, for treating people with symptoms of oral lichen planus.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 25 February 2019: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of any local or systemic corticosteroid treatment compared with a placebo, a calcineurin inhibitor, another corticosteroid, any other local or systemic (or both) drug, or the same corticosteroid plus an adjunctive treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently scanned the titles and abstracts of all reports identified, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data from included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we expressed the estimates of effects of an intervention as risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. The statistical unit of analysis was the participant. We conducted meta-analyses only with studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 35 studies (1474 participants) in this review. We assessed seven studies at low risk of bias overall, 11 at unclear and the remaining 17 studies at high risk of bias. We present results for our main outcomes, pain and clinical resolution measured at the end of the treatment course (between one week and six months), and adverse effects. The limited evidence available for comparisons between different corticosteroids, and corticosteroids versus alternative or adjunctive treatments is presented in the full review.\nCorticosteroids versus placebo\nThree studies evaluated the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids in an adhesive base compared to placebo. We were able to combine two studies in meta-analyses, one evaluating clobetasol propionate and the other flucinonide. We found low-certainty evidence that pain may be more likely to be resolved when using a topical corticosteroid rather than a placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.36; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%). The results for clinical effect of treatment and adverse effects were inconclusive (clinical resolution: RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 47.58; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence; adverse effects RR 1.48, 95% 0.48 to 4.56; 3 studies, 88 participants, I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence).\nCorticosteroids versus calcineurin inhibitors\nThree studies compared topical clobetasol propionate versus topical tacrolimus. We found very low-certainty evidence regarding any difference between tacrolimus and clobetasol for the outcomes pain resolution (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88; 2 studies, 100 participants; I² = 80%), clinical resolution (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99; 2 studies, 52 participants; I² = 95%) and adverse effects (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83; 2 studies, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence) .\nOne study (39 participants) compared topical clobetasol and ciclosporin, and provided only very low-certainty evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution with clobetasol (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.93), pain resolution (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.76 to 5.86) and adverse effects (RR 6.32, 95% CI 0.84 to 47.69).\nTwo studies (60 participants) that compared triamcinolone and tacrolimus found uncertain evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.35; very low-certainty evidence) and that there may be a lower rate of adverse effects in the triamcinolone group (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report on pain resolution.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCorticosteroids have been first line for the treatment of OLP. This review found that these drugs, delivered topically as adhesive gels or similar preparations, may be more effective than placebo for reducing the pain of symptomatic OLP; however, with the small number of studies and participants, our confidence in the reliability of this finding is low. The results for clinical response were inconclusive, and we are uncertain about adverse effects. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that calcineurin inhibitors, specifically tacrolimus, may be more effective at resolving pain than corticosteroids, although there is some uncertainty about adverse effects and clinical response to tacrolimus showed conflicting results.\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": "Results from two studies showed that topical corticosteroids (e.g. clobetasol propionate, flucinonide, betamethasone and triamcinolone acetonide), when applied to the mouth in a sticky cream, may be effective in reducing and stopping pain. We do not have the evidence that topical corticosteroids can eliminate the oral lichen planus lesions, and we are uncertain about side effects.\nWe found no consistent evidence that any particular corticosteroid was better than any other.\nThree studies using another topical medicine called tacrolimus (a calcineurin inhibitor) found that this medicine may be more effective than corticosteroids, but may be more likely to cause mild side effects.\nAvailable evidence comparing corticosteroids with other treatments is very limited."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5240 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCritical illness is associated with uncontrolled inflammation and vascular damage which can result in multiple organ failure and death. Antithrombin III (AT III) is an anticoagulant with anti-inflammatory properties but the efficacy and any harmful effects of AT III supplementation in critically ill patients are unknown. This review was published in 2008 and updated in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo examine:\n1. The effect of AT III on mortality in critically ill participants.\n2. The benefits and harms of AT III.\nWe investigated complications specific and not specific to the trial intervention, bleeding events, the effect on sepsis and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in hospital in general.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases from inception to 27 August 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP,), CAB, BIOSIS and CINAHL. We contacted the main authors of trials to ask for any missed, unreported or ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published, or language. We contacted the investigators and the trial authors in order to retrieve missing data. In this updated review we include trials only published as abstracts.\nData collection and analysis\nOur primary outcome measure was mortality. Two authors each independently abstracted data and resolved any disagreements by discussion. We presented pooled estimates of the intervention effects on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We performed subgroup analyses to assess risk of bias, the effect of AT III in different populations (sepsis, trauma, obstetrics, and paediatrics), and the effect of AT III in patients with or without the use of concomitant heparin. We assessed the adequacy of the available number of participants and performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) to establish the implications for further research.\nMain results\nWe included 30 RCTs with a total of 3933 participants (3882 in the primary outcome analyses).\nCombining all trials, regardless of bias, showed no statistically significant effect of AT III on mortality with a RR of 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.03), I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 29 trials, 3882 participants, moderate quality of evidence). For trials with low risk of bias the RR was 0.96 (95% Cl 0.88 to 1.04, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 9 trials, 2915 participants) and for high risk of bias RR 0.94 (95% Cl 0.77 to 1.14, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 20 trials, 967 participants).\nFor participants with severe sepsis and DIC the RR for mortality was non-significant, 0.95 (95% Cl 0.88 to 1.03, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 12 trials, 2858 participants, moderate quality of evidence).\nWe conducted 14 subgroup and sensitivity analyses with respect to the different domains of risk of bias, but detected no statistically significant benefit in any subgroup analyses.\nOur secondary objective was to assess the benefits and harms of AT III. For complications specific to the trial intervention the RR was 1.26 (95% Cl 0.83 to 1.92, I² statistic = 0%, random-effect model, 3 trials, 2454 participants, very low quality of evidence). For complications not specific to the trial intervention, the RR was 0.71 (95% Cl 0.08 to 6.11, I² statistic = 28%, random-effects model, 2 trials, 65 participants, very low quality of evidence). For complications other than bleeding, the RR was 0.72 ( 95% Cl 0.42 to 1.25, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 3 trials, 187 participants, very low quality of evidence). Eleven trials investigated bleeding events and we found a statistically significant increase, RR 1.58 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.84, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 11 trials, 3019 participants, moderate quality of evidence) in the AT III group. The amount of red blood cells administered had a mean difference (MD) of 138.49 (95% Cl -391.35 to 668.34, I² statistic = 84%, random-effect model, 4 trials, 137 participants, very low quality of evidence). The effect of AT III in patients with multiple organ failure (MOF) was a MD of -1.24 (95% Cl -2.18 to -0.29, I² statistic = 48%, random-effects model, 3 trials, 156 participants, very low quality of evidence) and for patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score (APACHE) at II and III the MD was -2.18 (95% Cl -4.36 to -0.00, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 3 trials, 102 participants, very low quality of evidence). The incidence of respiratory failure had a RR of 0.93 (95% Cl 0.76 to 1.14, I² statistic = 32%, random-effects model, 6 trials, 2591 participants, moderate quality of evidence). AT III had no statistically significant impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 2.20 days, 95% Cl -1.21 to 5.60, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 3 trials, 190 participants, very low quality of evidence); on the length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.24, 95% Cl -1.34 to 1.83, I² statistic = 0%, fixed-effect model, 7 trials, 376 participants, very low quality of evidence) or on the length of stay in hospital in general (MD 1.10, 95% Cl -7.16 to 9.36), I² statistic = 74%, 4 trials, 202 participants, very low quality of evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to support AT III substitution in any category of critically ill participants including the subset of patients with sepsis and DIC. We did not find a statistically significant effect of AT III on mortality, but AT III increased the risk of bleeding events. Subgroup analyses performed according to duration of intervention, length of follow-up, different patient groups, and use of adjuvant heparin did not show differences in the estimates of intervention effects. The majority of included trials were at high risk of bias (GRADE; very low quality of evidence for most of the analyses). Hence a large RCT of AT III is needed, without adjuvant heparin among critically ill patients such as those with severe sepsis and DIC, with prespecified inclusion criteria and good bias protection.\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 30 trials with 3933 participants (3882 in our data calculation) in this updated review. We found the overall quality of trials to be poor, with little information on how the experiments were carried out. The results were limited and the included trials were mostly small. In most trials, there was a high risk of misleading information. Thus, the results must be interpreted with caution. The evidence is up to date to 27 August 2015."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5241 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAge-related cataract affects both eyes in most cases. Most people undergo cataract surgery in both eyes on separate days, referred to as delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). An alternative procedure involves operating on both eyes on the same day, but as two separate procedures, known as immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). Potential advantages of ISBCS include fewer hospital visits for the patient, faster visual recovery, and lower healthcare costs. Nevertheless, concerns exist about possible bilateral, postoperative, sight-threatening adverse effects with ISBCS. Therefore, there is a clear need for evaluating evidence regarding the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of ISBCS versus DSBCS.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts and to summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with the use of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts (primary objectives). The secondary objective was to assess visual and patient-reported outcomes of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP; and DARE and NHS EED on the CRD Database on 11 May 2021. There were no language restrictions. We limited the searches to a date range of 2007 onwards.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess complications, refractive outcomes, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with ISBCS compared to DSBCS. We included non-randomised (NRSs), prospective, and retrospective cohort studies comparing ISBCS and DSBCS for safety assessment, because of the rare incidence of important adverse events. To assess cost-effectiveness of ISBCS compared to DSBCS, we included both full and partial economic evaluations, and both trial-based and model-based economic evaluations.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and assessed risk of bias for NRSs using the ROBINS-I tool. For cost-evaluations, we used the CHEC-list, the CHEERS-checklist, and the NICE-checklist to investigate risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with the GRADE tool. We reported results for economic evaluations narratively.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies in the review; two RCTs, seven NRSs, and six economic evaluations (one study was both an NRS and economic evaluation). The studies reported on 276,260 participants (7384 for ISBCS and 268,876 for DSBCS) and were conducted in Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, (South) Korea, Spain (Canary Islands), Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Overall, we considered the included RCTs to be at 'high to some concerns' risk of bias for complications, 'some concerns' risk of bias for refractive outcomes and visual acuity, and 'high' risk of bias for PROMs. The overall risk of bias for NRSs was graded 'serious' regarding complications and 'serious to critical' regarding refractive outcomes.\nWith regard to endophthalmitis, we found that relative effects were estimated imprecisely and with low certainty, so that relative estimates were not reliable. Nonetheless, we found a very low risk of endophthalmitis in both ISBCS (1/14,076 participants) and DSBCS (55/556,246 participants) groups. Based on descriptive evidence and partially weak statistical evidence we found no evidence of an increased risk of endophthalmitis with ISBCS. Regarding refractive outcomes, we found moderate-certainty (RCTs) and low-certainty (NRSs) evidence there was no difference in the percentage of eyes that did not achieve refraction within 1.0 dioptre of target one to three months after surgery (RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.26; NRSs: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.75). Similarly, postoperative complications did not differ between groups (RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.40; NRSs: 1.04, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.29), although the certainty of this evidence was very low for both RCTs and NRSs. Furthermore, we found low-certainty (RCTs) to very low-certainty (NRSs) evidence that total costs per participant were lower for ISBCS compared to DSBCS, although results of individual studies could not be pooled. Only one study reported on cost-effectiveness. This study found that ISBCS is cost-effective compared to DSBCS, but did not measure quality-adjusted life years using preferred methods and calculated costs erroneously. Finally, regarding secondary outcomes, we found limited evidence on BCDVA (data of two RCTs could not be pooled, although both studies individually found no difference between groups (very low-certainty evidence)). Regarding PROMs, we found moderate-certainty evidence (RCTs only) that there was no difference between groups one to three months after surgery (standardised mean difference −0.08, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.03).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence supports there are probably no clinically important differences in outcomes between ISBCS and DSBCS, but with lower costs for ISBCS. However, the amount of evidence is limited, and the certainty of the evidence was graded moderate to very low. In addition, there is a need for well-designed cost-effectiveness studies.\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 14 studies that involved 276,260 people (7384 who had ISBCS and 268,876 who had DSBCS). The studies were conducted in Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, (South) Korea, Spain (Canary Islands), Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Most studies lasted for around three months."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5242 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNeonates may undergo surgery because of malformations such as diaphragmatic hernia, gastroschisis, congenital heart disease, and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, or complications of prematurity, such as necrotizing enterocolitis, spontaneous intestinal perforation, and retinopathy of prematurity that require surgical treatment. Options for treatment of postoperative pain include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported. The assessment of the effects of opioids is of utmost importance, especially for neonates in substantial pain during the postoperative period.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic opioid analgesics in neonates who underwent surgery on all-cause mortality, pain, and significant neurodevelopmental disability compared to no intervention, placebo, non-pharmacological interventions, different types of opioids, or other drugs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed and CINAHL in May 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov, and ICTRP trial registries. We searched conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for RCTs and quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days with postoperative pain where systemic opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no intervention; 2) non-pharmacological interventions; 3) different types of opioids; or 4) other drugs.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, major neurodevelopmental disability, and cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs enrolling 331 infants in four countries across different continents. Most studies considered patients undergoing large or medium surgical procedures (including major thoracic or abdominal surgery), who potentially required pain control through opioid administration after surgery. The randomized trials did not consider patients undergoing minor surgery (including inguinal hernia repair) and those individuals exposed to opioids before the beginning of the trial. Two RCTs compared opioids with placebo; one fentanyl with tramadol; and one morphine with paracetamol. No meta-analyses could be performed because the included RCTs reported no more than three outcomes within the prespecified comparisons. Certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes due to imprecision of the estimates (downgrade by two levels) and study limitations (downgrade by one level).\nComparison 1: opioids versus no treatment or placebo\nTwo trials were included in this comparison, comparing either tramadol or tapentadol with placebo. No data were reported on the following critical outcomes: pain; major neurodevelopmental disability; or cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tramadol compared with placebo on all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization (RR 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.70; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05, 71 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable). No data were reported on: retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage.\nComparison 2: opioids versus non-pharmacological interventions\nNo trials were included in this comparison.\nComparison 3: head-to-head comparisons of different opioids\nOne trial comparing fentanyl with tramadol was included in this comparison. No data were reported on the following critical outcomes: pain; major neurodevelopmental disability; or cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fentanyl compared with tramadol on all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.64; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.13, 171 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable). No data were reported on: retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage.\nComparison 4: opioids versus other analgesics and sedatives\nOne trial comparing morphine with paracetamol was included in this comparison. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine compared with paracetamol on COMFORT pain scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.85 to 1.05; 71 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable). No data were reported on the other critical outcomes, i.e. major neurodevelopmental disability; cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization; retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLimited evidence is available on opioid administration for postoperative pain in newborn infants compared to either placebo, other opioids, or paracetamol.\nWe are uncertain whether tramadol reduces mortality compared to placebo; none of the studies reported pain scores, major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children older than five years old, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We are uncertain whether fentanyl reduces mortality compared to tramadol; none of the studies reported pain scores, major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children older than five years old, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We are uncertain whether morphine reduces pain compared to paracetamol; none of the studies reported major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We identified no studies comparing opioids versus non-pharmacological interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are not confident in the evidence because there were not enough studies to be certain about the results of our outcomes. Also, it is possible that people in the studies were aware of what treatment they were given. Not all the studies provided data about everything that we were interested in."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5243 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines or nasal irrigation in improving symptoms of acute sinusitis in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1950 to June week 1, 2014) and EMBASE (1950 to June 2014).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, which evaluated children younger than 18 years of age with acute sinusitis, defined as 10 to 30 days of rhinorrhea, congestion or daytime cough. We excluded trials of children with chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed each study for inclusion.\nMain results\nOf the 662 studies identified through the electronic searches and handsearching, none met all the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence to determine whether the use of antihistamines, decongestants or nasal irrigation is efficacious in children with acute sinusitis. Further research is needed to determine whether these interventions are beneficial in the treatment of children with acute sinusitis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "After a comprehensive review of the literature, we failed to identify any trials that evaluated the efficacy of these interventions (compared to no medication or placebo) in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5244 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSystemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19.\nWe included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids.\nWe excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.\nMain results\nWe included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design.\nHospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19\nSystemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo\nWe included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies.\nSystemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nFor serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting).\nDifferent types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids\nWe identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study.\nWe included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg).\nHigh-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death).\nFor serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence.\nWe could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances.\nEquity-related subgroup analyses\nWe conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants.\nOutpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease\nThere are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSystemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data.\nWe identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"We were interested in\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "• deaths from any cause up to 30 and 120 days after treatment start;\n• whether people got better or worse after treatment;\n• unwanted effects, for example infections caught in hospital."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5245 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOne nutritional intervention advocated to prevent malnutrition among children is lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS). LNS provide a range of vitamins and minerals, but unlike most other micronutrient supplements, LNS also provide energy, protein and essential fatty acids. Alternative recipes and formulations to LNS include fortified blended foods (FBF), which are foods fortified with vitamins and minerals, and micronutrient powders (MNP), which are a combination of vitamins and minerals,\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of preventive LNS given with complementary foods on health, nutrition and developmental outcomes of non-hospitalised infants and children six to 23 months of age, and whether or not they are more effective than other foods (including FBF or MNP).\nThis review did not assess the effects of LNS as supplementary foods or therapeutic foods in the management of moderate and severe acute malnutrition.\nSearch methods\nIn October 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 21 other databases and two trials registers for relevant studies. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews and contacted the authors of studies and other experts in the area for any ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the impact of LNS plus complementary foods given at point-of-use (for any dose, frequency, duration) to non-hospitalised infants and young children aged six to 23 months in stable or emergency settings and compared to no intervention, other supplementary foods (i.e. FBF), nutrition counselling or multiple micronutrient supplements or powders for point-of-use fortification of complementary foods.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies for relevance and, for those studies included in the review, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager software. We used a random-effects meta-analysis for combining data as the interventions differed significantly. We set out the main findings of the review in 'Summary of findings' tables,.\nMain results\nOur search identified a total of 8124 records, from which we included 17 studies (54 papers) with 23,200 children in the review. The included studies reported on one or more of the pre-specified primary outcomes, and five studies included multiple comparison groups.\nOverall, the majority of trials were at low risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and other sources of bias, but at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention. Using the GRADE approach, we judged the quality of the evidence for most outcomes as low or moderate.\nLNS+complementary feeding compared with no intervention Thirteen studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with no intervention. LNS plus complementary feeding reduced the prevalence of moderate stunting by 7% (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.98; nine studies, 13,372 participants; moderate-quality evidence), severe stunting by 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; five studies, 6151 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate wasting by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; eight studies; 13,172 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate underweight by 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; eight studies, 13,073 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and anaemia by 21% (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.90; five studies, 2332 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no impact of LNS plus complementary feeding on severe wasting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.46; three studies, 2329 participants) and severe underweight (RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.13; two studies, 1729 participants). Adverse effects did not differ between the groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01; three studies, 3382 participants).\nLNS+complementary feeding compared with FBF Five studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with other FBF, including corn soy blend and UNIMIX. We pooled four of the five studies in meta-analyses and found that, when compared to other FBF, LNS plus complementary feeding significantly reduced the prevalence of moderate stunting (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; three studies, 2828 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate wasting (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; two studies, 2290 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and moderate underweight (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91; two studies, 2280 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We found no difference between LNS plus complementary feeding and FBF for severe stunting (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.42; two studies, 729 participants; low-quality evidence), severe wasting (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.81; two studies, 735 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and severe underweight (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.25; one study, 173 participants; low-quality evidence).\nLNS+complementary feeding compared with MNP Four studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with MNP. We pooled data from three of the four studies in meta-analyses and found that compared to MNP, LNS plus complementary feeding significantly reduced the prevalence of moderate underweight (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; two studies, 2004 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and anaemia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; two studies, 557 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no difference between LNS plus complementary feeding and MNP for moderate stunting (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; three studies, 2365 participants) and moderate wasting (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; two studies, 2004 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings of this review suggest that LNS plus complementary feeding compared to no intervention is effective at improving growth outcomes and anaemia without adverse effects among children aged six to 23 months in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in Asia and Africa, and more effective if provided over a longer duration of time (over 12 months). Limited evidence also suggests that LNS plus complementary feeding is more effective than FBF and MNP at improving growth outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Overall, we considered most studies to be at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to the nature of intervention. We rated the quality of the evidence for most outcomes as either low or moderate."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5246 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCritical lower limb ischaemia (CLI) is a manifestation of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) that is seen in patients with typical chronic ischaemic rest pain or patients with ischaemic skin lesions - ulcers or gangrene - for longer than 2 weeks. Critical lower limb ischaemia is the most severe form of PAD, and interventions to improve arterial perfusion become necessary. Although surgical bypass has been the gold standard for revascularisation, the extent or the site of disease may be such that the artery cannot be reconstructed or bypassed. These patients require other modalities of treatment, for example, vasodilatation by drugs or lumbar sympathectomy to relieve pain at rest and to avoid amputations. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials is required to evaluate the effects of lumbar sympathectomy in treating patients with CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review is to assess the effects of lumbar sympathectomy by open, laparoscopic and percutaneous methods compared with no treatment or compared with any other method of lumbar sympathectomy in patients with CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (January 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12). In addition, the CIS searched clinical trials databases for details of ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any of the treatment modalities of lumbar sympathectomy, such as open, laparoscopic and chemical percutaneous methods, with no treatment or with any other method of lumbar sympathectomy for CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD were eligible. To decrease the bias of including participants that may be incorrectly diagnosed with CLI, review authors defined CLI as persistently recurring ischaemic rest pain requiring regular analgesia for more than two weeks, or ulceration or gangrene of the foot or toes, attributable to objectively proven arterial occlusive disease by measurement of ankle pressure of < 50 mmHg or toe pressure < 30 mmHg. We defined non-reconstructable PAD as a resting ankle brachial index (ABI) < 0.9 when no reasonable open surgical or endovascular revascularisation treatment option is available, as determined by individual trial vascular specialists.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion in the review. We planned to conduct data collection and analysis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe identified no studies that met the predefined inclusion criteria. To decrease the bias of including participants who may be incorrectly diagnosed with CLI, we based our inclusion criteria on objective tests, as described above. The randomised trials identified by the literature search were performed before such objective criteria for selection were applied and therefore were not eligible for inclusion in the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified no RCTs assessing effects of lumbar sympathectomy by open, laparoscopic and percutaneous methods compared with no treatment or compared with any other method of lumbar sympathectomy in patients with CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD. High-quality studies are needed.\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": "It was not possible to evaluate the quality of evidence in the absence of studies eligible for inclusion in the review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5247 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOvarian response to stimulation during in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) plays an important role in determining live birth rates. Adjuvant treatments during ovarian stimulation that have different modes of action have been used to improve ovarian response to stimulation and outcome of IVF. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are a class of steroid hormones that have been used either alone or in combination with other stimulatory regimens in order to improve folliculogenesis and pregnancy rates. However, considerable uncertainty remains over whether administration of glucocorticoid during ovarian stimulation until oocyte recovery is superior to no glucocorticoid in improving live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI.\nObjectives\nTo determine the safety and effectiveness of systemic glucocorticoids during ovarian stimulation for IVF and ICSI cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to 10 October 2016. We handsearched reference lists of articles, trial registers and relevant conference proceedings and contacted researchers in the field.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant treatment with systemic glucocorticoids during ovarian stimulation for IVF or ICSI cycles versus no adjuvant treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and side-effects. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled the data using a fixed-effect model. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nFour RCTs were included in the review (416 women). The trials compared glucocorticoid supplementation during IVF stimulation versus placebo. Two of the studies had data in a form that we could not enter into analysis, so results include data from only two trials (310) women. For the outcome of live birth, data were available for only 212 women, as the larger study had data available from only one study centre.\nOne of the studies gave inadequate description of randomisation methods, but the other was at low risk of bias in all domains. The evidence was rated as low or very low quality for all outcomes, mainly due to imprecision, with low sample sizes and few events.\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference between the groups in live birth rate (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.58; 2 RCTs, n = 212, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with placebo is assumed to be 15%, the chance following supplementation would be between 7% and 31%. There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.90; 2 RCTs, n = 310, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).The evidence suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy with placebo is assumed to be 24%, the chance following treatment with glucocorticoid supplementation would be between 23% and 47%. There was also insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference between the groups in multiple-pregnancy rate (OR 3.32 , 95% CI 0.12 to 91.60; 1 RCT , n = 20, very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.57; 1 RCT, n = 20, very low-quality evidence). Neither of the studies reported OHSS or side-effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe safety and effectiveness of glucocorticoid administration in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF/ICSI cycles (until the day of oocyte retrieval) is unclear due to the small number of studies and low event rates. Whilst glucocorticoids possibly increase the clinical pregnancy rate, there may be little or no impact on live birth rate. More research is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence was rated as low or very low quality for all outcomes, mainly due to imprecision, with low sample sizes and few events."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5248 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nParkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive disorder characterised by both motor and non-motor problems. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, licensed for treatment of type 2 diabetes, work by stimulating GLP-1 receptors in the pancreas, which triggers the release of insulin. GLP-1 receptors have been found in the brain. Insulin signalling in the brain plays a key role in neuronal metabolism and repair and in synaptic efficacy, but insulin signalling is desensitised in the brain of people with PD. Researchers are exploring the neuroprotective effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in neurodegenerative disorders such as PD.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists for Parkinson's disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group trials register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; and Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries, and we handsearched conference abstracts. The most recent search was run on 25 June 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with PD that compared GLP-1 receptor agonists with conventional PD treatment, placebo, or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE. We resolved discrepancies between the two data extractors by consultation with a third review author.\nMain results\nThrough our searches, we retrieved 99 unique records, of which two met our inclusion criteria. One double-blind study of exenatide versus placebo randomised 62 participants, who self-administered exenatide or placebo for 48 weeks and were followed up at 60 weeks after a 12-week washout. One single-blind study of exenatide versus no additional treatment randomised 45 participants; participants in the intervention group self-administered exenatide for 12 months, and all participants were followed up at 14 months and 24 months following absence of exenatide for 2 months and 12 months, respectively. These trials had low risk of bias, except risk of performance bias was high for Aviles-Olmos 2013.\nExenatide versus placebo\nPrimary outcomes\nWe found low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide improves motor impairment as assessed by the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III in the off-medication state (mean difference (MD) -3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.11 to -0.09). The difference in scores was slightly greater when scores were adjusted for baseline severity of the condition (as reported by study authors) (MD -3.5, 95% CI -6.7 to -0.3), exceeding the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).\nWe found low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide has little or no effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as assessed by the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ)-39 Summary Index (SI) (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.95 to 3.35), the EuroQol scale measuring health status in five dimensions (EQ5D) (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.16), or the EQ5D visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD 5.00, 95% CI -3.42 to 13.42). Eight serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded, but all were considered unrelated to the intervention. Low-certainty evidence suggests that exenatide has little or no effect on weight loss (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.76).\nExenatide versus no treatment\nPrimary outcomes at 14 months\nWe found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide improves motor impairment as assessed by MDS-UPDRS Part III off medication (MD -4.50, 95% CI -8.64 to -0.36), exceeding the MCID. We are uncertain whether exenatide improves HRQoL as assessed by the PDQ-39 SI (MD 3.50, 95% CI -2.75 to 9.75; very low-quality evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide has little or no effect on the number of SAEs (RR 1.60, 95% 0.40 to 6.32). We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide may lead to weight loss (MD -2.40 kg, 95% CI -4.56 to -0.24).\nPrimary outcomes at 24 months\nWe found evidence as reported by study authors to suggest that exenatide improves motor impairment as measured by MDS-UPDRS Part III off medication (MD 5.6 points, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.0). Exenatide may not improve HRQoL as assessed by the PDQ-39 SI (P = 0.682) and may not result in weight loss (MD 0.1 kg, 95% CI 3.0 to 2.8).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow- or very low-certainty evidence suggests that exenatide may improve motor impairment for people with PD. The difference in motor impairment observed between groups may persist for some time following cessation of exenatide. This raises the possibility that exenatide may have a disease-modifying effect. SAEs were unlikely to be related to treatment. The effectiveness of exenatide for improving HRQoL, non-motor outcomes, ADLs, and psychological outcomes is unclear. Ongoing studies are assessing other GLP-1 receptor agonists.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found two studies that provided data for a total of 104 patients (following dropout of three patients). One study compared exenatide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) versus placebo (a pretend medicine), and the other study compared exenatide versus no treatment (other than the usual treatment that people received). Evidence is current to June 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5249 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUpper gastrointestinal bleeding is typically a mild, self-limiting condition that can affect both preterm and term neonates, although it can be severe particularly when associated with co-morbidities. Pharmacological interventions with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), antacid, bismuth and sucralfate may have effects on both the prevention and treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in infants.\nObjectives\nTo assess how different pharmacological interventions (PPIs, H2RAs, antacids, sucralfate or bismuth salts) administered to preterm and term neonates for the prevention or treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding to reduce morbidity and mortality compare with placebo or no treatment, supportive care, or each other.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 6), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 12 July 2018), Embase (1980 to 12 July 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 12 July 2018). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials, and online for Chinese literature articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials involving preterm and term neonates. Trials were included if they used a proton pump inhibitor, H2 receptor antagonist, antacid, sucralfate or bismuth either for the prevention or treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We conducted meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. We used the GRADE approach to assess quality of evidence.\nMain results\nEleven studies with 818 infants met the criteria for inclusion in this review.\nFour trials with 329 infants assessed the use of an H2 receptor antagonist for prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk newborn infants. Meta-analysis of these four trials identified a reduction in any upper gastrointestinal bleeding when using an H2 receptor antagonist (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.58; typical risk difference (RD) −0.20, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.11; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5, 95% CI 4 to 9). The quality of evidence was moderate. A single trial with 53 infants assessing prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding reported no difference in mortality in infants assigned H2 receptor antagonist versus no treatment; however the quality of evidence was very low.\nSeven trials with 489 infants assessed an inhibitor of gastric acid (H2 receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor) for treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding in newborn infants. Meta-analysis of two trials (131 infants) showed no difference in mortality from use of a H2 receptor antagonist compared to no treatment. The quality of evidence was low. Meta-analysis of two trials (104 infants) showed a reduction in duration of upper gastrointestinal bleeding from use of an inhibitor of gastric acid compared to no treatment (mean difference −1.06 days, 95% CI −1.28 to −0.84). The quality of evidence was very low. Meta-analysis of six trials (451 infants) showed a reduction in continued upper gastrointestinal bleeding from use of any inhibitor of gastric acid compared to no treatment (typical RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.49; typical RD −0.26, 95% CI −0.33, −0.19; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5). The quality of evidence was low. There were no significant subgroup differences in duration of upper gastrointestinal bleeding or of continued upper gastrointestinal bleeding according to type of inhibitor of gastric acid. A single trial (38 infants) reported no difference in anaemia requiring blood transfusion from use of a H2 receptor antagonist compared to no treatment.\nAlthough no serious adverse events were reported from the use of a H2 receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor, some neonatal morbidities — including necrotising enterocolitis, ventilator-associated pneumonia, duration of ventilation and respiratory support, and duration of hospital stay — were not reported. Long-term outcome was not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that use of an H2 receptor antagonist reduces the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in newborn infants at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. There is low-quality evidence that use of an inhibitor of gastric acid (H2 receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor) reduces the duration of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the incidence of continued gastric bleeding in newborn infants with gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there is no evidence that use of an inhibitor of gastric acid in newborn infants affects mortality or the need for blood transfusion. As no study reported the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, ventilator- or hospital-associated pneumonia, sepsis, or long-term outcome, the safety of inhibitors of gastric acid secretion is unclear.\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 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The search is up to date as of 12 July 2018."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5250 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nManagement of the open abdomen is a considerable burden for patients and healthcare professionals. Various temporary abdominal closure techniques have been suggested for managing the open abdomen. In recent years, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been used in some centres for the treatment of non-trauma patients with an open abdomen; however, its effectiveness is uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on primary fascial closure for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients in any care setting.\nSearch methods\nIn October 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL EBSCO Plus. To identify additional studies, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NPWT with any other type of temporary abdominal closure (e.g. Bogota bag, Wittmann patch) in non-trauma patients with open abdomen in any care setting. We also included RCTs that compared different types of NPWT systems for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed the study selection process, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included two studies, involving 74 adults with open abdomen associated with various conditions, predominantly severe peritonitis (N = 55). The mean age of the participants was 52.8 years; the mean proportion of women was 39.2%. Both RCTs were carried out in single centres and were at high risk of bias.\nNegative pressure wound therapy versus Bogota bag\nWe included one study (40 participants) comparing NPWT with Bogota bag. We are uncertain whether NPWT reduces time to primary fascial closure of the abdomen (NPWT: 16.9 days versus Bogota bag: 20.5 days (mean difference (MD) -3.60 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.16 to 0.96); very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events (fistulae formation, NPWT: 10% versus Bogota: 5% (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 20.33); very low-certainty evidence) compared with the Bogota bag. We are also uncertain whether NPWT reduces all-cause mortality (NPWT: 25% versus Bogota bag: 35% (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.88); very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay compared with the Bogota bag (NPWT mean: 28.5 days versus Bogota bag mean: 27.4 days (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI -13.39 to 15.59); very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report the proportion of participants with successful primary fascial closure of the abdomen, participant health-related quality of life, reoperation rate, wound infection, or pain.\nNegative pressure wound therapy versus any other type of temporary abdominal closure\nThere were no randomised controlled trials comparing NPWT with any other type of temporary abdominal closure.\nComparison of different negative pressure wound therapy devices\nWe included one study (34 participants) comparing different types of NPWT systems (Suprasorb CNP system versus ABThera system). We are uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system increases the proportion of participants with successful primary fascial closure of the abdomen compared with the ABThera system (Suprasorb CNP system: 88.2% versus ABThera system: 70.6% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.14); very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system reduces adverse events (fistulae formation, Suprasorb CNP system: 0% versus ABThera system: 23.5% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.92); very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (Suprasorb CNP system: 5.9% versus ABThera system: 17.6% (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.89); very low-certainty evidence), or reoperation rate compared with the ABThera system (Suprasorb CNP system: 100% versus ABThera system: 100% (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12); very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report the time to primary fascial closure of the abdomen, participant health-related quality of life, length of hospital stay, wound infection, or pain.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the available trial data, we are uncertain whether NPWT has any benefit in primary fascial closure of the abdomen, adverse events (fistulae formation), all-cause mortality, or length of hospital stay compared with the Bogota bag. We are also uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system has any benefit in primary fascial closure of the abdomen, adverse events, all-cause mortality, or reoperation rate compared with the ABThera system. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as participant health-related quality of life, wound infection, and pain outcomes is required. We will update this review when data from the large studies that are currently ongoing are available.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We only found two relevant studies, so we are uncertain about the benefits or harms of using NPWT compared with using a Bogota bag or different types of NPWT systems. We did not find any studies that compared NPWT with other types of temporary abdominal closure."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5251 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLateral elbow pain, or tennis elbow, is a common condition that causes pain in the elbow and forearm. Although self-limiting, it can be associated with significant disability and often results in work absence. It is often treated with topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a review first published in 2002 (search date October 11, 2012).\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of topical and oral NSAIDs for treating people with lateral elbow pain.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and SciSearch up to October 11, 2012. No language restriction was applied.\nSelection criteria\nStudies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs or CCTs) that compared topical or oral NSAIDs with placebo or another intervention, or compared two NSAIDs in adults with lateral elbow pain. Outcomes of interest were pain, function, quality of life, pain-free grip strength, overall treatment success, work loss and adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted the data, and performed a risk of bias assessment.\nMain results\nFifteen trials, involving 759 participants and reporting 17 comparisons, were included in the review. Four new trials identified from the updated search were included, along with 11 of 14 trials included in the original review (three trials included in the previous review were found not to meet inclusion criteria). Of eight trials that studied topical NSAIDs (301 participants), five compared topical NSAIDs with placebo, one compared manipulative therapy and topical NSAIDs with manipulative therapy alone, one compared leech therapy with topical NSAIDs and one compared two different topical NSAIDs. Of seven trials that investigated oral NSAIDs (437 participants), two compared oral NSAIDs with placebo, one compared oral NSAIDs and bandaging with bandaging alone, three compared oral NSAIDs with glucocorticoid injection, one compared oral NSAIDs with a vasodilator and two compared two different oral NSAIDs. No trials directly compared topical NSAIDs with oral NSAIDs. Few trials used intention-to-treat analysis, and the sample size of most was small. The median follow-up was 2 weeks (range 1 week to 1 year).\nLow-quality evidence was obtained from three trials (153 participants) suggesting that topical NSAIDs were significantly more effective than placebo with respect to pain in the short term (mean difference -1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.42 to -0.86) and number needed to treat to benefit (7 (95% CI 3 to 21) on a 0 to 10 scale). Low-quality evidence was obtained from one trial (85 participants) indicating that significantly more participants report fair, good or excellent effectiveness with topical NSAIDs versus placebo at 28 days (14 days of therapy) (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.14). No participants withdrew as the result of adverse events, but some studies reported mild adverse effects such as rash in 2.5% of those exposed to topical NSAIDs compared with 1.3% of those exposed to placebo.\nLow-quality and conflicting evidence regarding the benefits of oral NSAIDs obtained from two trials could not be pooled. One trial found significantly greater improvement in pain compared with placebo, and the other trial found no between-group differences; neither trial found differences in function. One trial reported a withdrawal due to adverse effects for a participant in the NSAIDs group. Use of oral NSAIDs was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal side effects compared with placebo in one trial in the review. Another trial reported discontinuation of treatment due to gastrointestinal side effects in four participants taking NSAIDs, and another participant developed an allergic reaction in response to oral NSAIDs.\nVery scant and conflicting evidence regarding the comparative effects of oral NSAIDs and glucocorticoid injection was obtained. One trial reported a significant improvement in pain with glucocorticoid injection, and another found no between-group differences; treatment success was similar between groups (RR of fair, good or excellent effectiveness 0.74; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.26). Transient pain may occur following injection.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere remains limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions about the benefits or harms of topical or oral NSAIDs in treating lateral elbow pain. Although data from five placebo-controlled trials suggest that topical NSAIDs may be beneficial in improving pain (for up to 4 weeks), non-normal distribution of data and other methodological issues precluded firm conclusions. Some people may expect a mild transient skin rash. Evidence about the benefits of oral NSAIDs has been conflicting, although oral NSAID use may result in gastrointestinal adverse effects in some people. No direct comparisons between oral and topical NSAIDs were available. Some trials demonstrated greater benefit from glucocorticoid injection than from NSAIDs in the short term, but this was not apparent in all studies and was not apparent by 6 months in the only study that included longer-term outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Best estimate of what happens to people with lateral elbow pain who use NSAIDs\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": ""
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5252 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRoutine monitoring of gastric residuals in preterm infants on tube feeds is a common practice in neonatal intensive care units used to guide initiation and advancement of enteral feeding. There is a paucity of consensus on whether to re-feed or discard the aspirated gastric residuals. While re-feeding gastric residuals may aid in digestion and promote gastrointestinal motility and maturation by replacing partially digested milk, gastrointestinal enzymes, hormones, and trophic substances, abnormal residuals may result in vomiting, necrotising enterocolitis, or sepsis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of re-feeding when compared to discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nSearches were conducted in February 2022 in Cochrane CENTRAL via CRS, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected RCTs that compared re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data, in duplicate. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and the mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe found one eligible trial that included 72 preterm infants. The trial was unmasked but was otherwise of good methodological quality.\nRe-feeding gastric residual may have little or no effect on time to regain birth weight (MD 0.40 days, 95% CI −2.89 to 3.69; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence), risk of necrotising enterocolitis stage ≥ 2 or spontaneous intestinal perforation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.04; 72 infants; low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.85; 72 infants; low-certainty evidence), time to establish enteral feeds ≥ 120 mL/kg/d (MD −1.30 days, 95% CI −2.93 to 0.33; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence), number of total parenteral nutrition days (MD −0.30 days, 95% CI −2.07 to 1.47; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence), and risk of extrauterine growth restriction at discharge (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.34; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain as to the effect of re-feeding gastric residual on number of episodes of feed interruption lasting for ≥ 12 hours (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.52; 59 infants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found only limited data from one small unmasked trial on the efficacy and safety of re-feeding gastric residuals in preterm infants. Low-certainty evidence suggests re-feeding gastric residual may have little or no effect on important clinical outcomes such as necrotising enterocolitis, all-cause mortality before hospital discharge, time to establish enteral feeds, number of total parenteral nutrition days, and in-hospital weight gain. A large RCT is needed to assess the efficacy and safety of re-feeding of gastric residuals in preterm infants with adequate certainty of evidence to inform policy and practice.\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 only one small study with 72 premature babies that investigated this question. Re-feeding stomach aspirates may have little or no effect on important outcomes such as the occurrence of necrotising enterocolitis, death before discharge, time to establish full feeds, number of total parenteral nutrition days, and in-hospital weight gain. We did not find information on other outcomes."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 5253 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSocial interaction and social communication are among the central areas of difficulty for autistic people. Music therapy uses music experiences and the relationships that develop through them to enable communication and expression, thus attempting to address some of the core problems of autistic people. Music therapy has been applied in autism since the early 1950s, but its availability to autistic individuals varies across countries and settings. The application of music therapy requires specialised academic and clinical training which enables therapists to tailor the intervention to the specific needs of the individual. The present version of this review on music therapy for autistic people is an update of the previous Cochrane review update published in 2014 (following the original Cochrane review published in 2006).\nObjectives\nTo review the effects of music therapy, or music therapy added to standard care, for autistic people.\nSearch methods\nIn August 2021, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eleven other databases and two trials registers. We also ran citation searches, checked reference lists, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials and controlled clinical trials comparing music therapy (or music therapy alongside standard care) to 'placebo' therapy, no treatment, or standard care for people with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder were considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Four authors independently selected studies and extracted data from all included studies. We synthesised the results of included studies in meta-analyses. Four authors independently assessed risk of bias (RoB) of each included study using the original RoB tool as well as the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 16 new studies in this update which brought the total number of included studies to 26 (1165 participants). These studies examined the short- and medium-term effect of music therapy (intervention duration: three days to eight months) for autistic people in individual or group settings. More than half of the studies were conducted in North America or Asia. Twenty-one studies included children aged from two to 12 years. Five studies included children and adolescents, and/or young adults. Severity levels, language skills, and cognition were widely variable across studies.\nMeasured immediately post-intervention, music therapy compared with 'placebo' therapy or standard care was more likely to positively effect global improvement (risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.40; 8 studies, 583 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 11 for low-risk population, 95% CI 6 to 39; NNTB = 6 for high-risk population, 95% CI 3 to 21) and to slightly increase quality of life (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.49; 3 RCTs, 340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, small to medium effect size). In addition, music therapy probably results in a large reduction in total autism symptom severity (SMD −0.83, 95% CI −1.41 to −0.24; 9 studies, 575 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear evidence of a difference between music therapy and comparison groups at immediately post-intervention was found for social interaction (SMD 0.26, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.57, 12 studies, 603 participants; low-certainty evidence); non-verbal communication (SMD 0.26, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.55; 7 RCTs, 192 participants; low-certainty evidence); and verbal communication (SMD 0.30, 95% CI −0.18 to 0.78; 8 studies, 276 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies investigated adverse events with one (36 participants) reporting no adverse events; the other study found no differences between music therapy and standard care immediately post-intervention (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.94; 1 study, 290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings of this updated review provide evidence that music therapy is probably associated with an increased chance of global improvement for autistic people, likely helps them to improve total autism severity and quality of life, and probably does not increase adverse events immediately after the intervention. The certainty of the evidence was rated as 'moderate' for these four outcomes, meaning that we are moderately confident in the effect estimate. No clear evidence of a difference was found for social interaction, non-verbal communication, and verbal communication measured immediately post-intervention. For these outcomes, the certainty of the evidence was rated as 'low' or 'very low', meaning that the true effect may be substantially different from these results. Compared with earlier versions of this review, the new studies included in this update helped to increase the certainty and applicability of this review's findings through larger sample sizes, extended age groups, longer periods of intervention and inclusion of follow-up assessments, and by predominantly using validated scales measuring generalised behaviour (i.e. behaviour outside of the therapy context). This new evidence is important for autistic individuals and their families as well as for policymakers, service providers and clinicians, to help in decisions around the types and amount of intervention that should be provided and in the planning of resources. The applicability of the findings is still limited to the age groups included in the studies, and no direct conclusions can be drawn about music therapy in autistic individuals above the young adult age. More research using rigorous designs, relevant outcome measures, and longer-term follow-up periods is needed to corroborate these findings and to examine whether the effects of music therapy are enduring.\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": "Music therapy compared with 'placebo' therapy or standard care probably increases the chance of overall improvement by the end of therapy, likely improves quality of life and total autism symptom severity immediately after therapy, and probably does not increase adverse events. From the available evidence, we cannot tell whether music therapy has any effects on social interaction, and verbal and non-verbal communication at the end of therapy."
}
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.