Datasets:

KenLuo
/

qls

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 24.7k rows

dataset stringclasses 1 value	id stringlengths 1 5	messages listlengths 2 2
query-laysum	5861	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAlveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials.\nARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes.\nDifferent grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure.\nWe found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons.\nNo serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane.\nAuthors' conclusions\nARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this question important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Tooth extraction is a common procedure that can be used for example to:\n- remove damaged or diseased teeth;\n- remove teeth that are in the wrong place; or\n- make room for other teeth.\nAfter a tooth extraction, the part of the jaw bone that used to hold the tooth shrinks because it is no longer needed to support the tooth. If the bone shrinks too much, this can:\n- make it difficult or impossible to replace the missing tooth with an artificial one (an implant); and\n- weaken the support and health of neighbouring teeth.\nTo limit bone loss after tooth extraction, dentists or surgeons can carry out a procedure called alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). ARP involves filling the hole left by the missing tooth (using a range of different materials and techniques), and leaving it to heal for several months. The hole can be filled with human, animal, or artificial bone. It can be covered over (to stop gums from growing into the hole) using:\n- materials that, after some time, are naturally absorbed by the body; or\n- materials that need to be removed with surgery once no longer needed.\nTo find out if ARP works to preserve jaw bone after tooth extraction, we reviewed the evidence from research studies. We also wanted to know if any materials and ARP techniques are better than others." } ]
query-laysum	5862	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMelanoma is the leading cause of skin cancer-associated mortality. The vast majority of newly diagnosed melanomas are confined to the primary cutaneous site. Surgery represents the mainstay of melanoma treatment. Treatment strategies include wide excision of the primary tumour and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) to assess the status of the regional nodal basin(s). SLNB has become an important component of initial melanoma management providing accurate disease staging.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of SLNB followed by completion lymph node dissection (CLND) for the treatment of localised primary cutaneous melanoma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to February 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS ((Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, from 1982). We also searched the following from inception: African Index Medicus, IndMED of India, Index Medicus for the South-East Asia Region, and six trials registers. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings from inception to February 2015, and we scanned the abstracts of major dermatology and oncology conference proceedings up to 2015.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently assessed all RCTs comparing SLNB followed by CLND for the treatment of primary localised cutaneous melanoma for inclusion. Primary outcome measures were overall survival and rate of treatment complications and side effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted and analysed data on survival and recurrence, assessed risk of bias, and collected adverse effect information from included trials.\nMain results\nWe identified and included a single eligible trial comparing SLNB with observation which was published in eight different reports (from 2005 to 2014) with 2001 participants. This trial did not report on our first primary outcome of overall survival (which was also the planned primary outcome of this trial). When contacted for this important data, the trial authors stated \"there are numerous additional analyses that have yet to be reported for the trial\". We were able however to estimate overall survival from data included in the appendix of the published report and found no evidence of benefit for SLNB for overall survival. The overall survival hazard ratio (HR) using ITT (intention-to-treat) analysis was 0.99 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 1.19, 1661 participants). The overall survival using ITT for intermediate thickness melanomas was (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16) and for thick melanomas it was (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.61).\nThe study did report on our second primary outcome of rate of treatment complications: short-term surgical morbidity (30 days) in 1735 participants showed no difference between SLNB and observation (risk ratio [RR] 1.11, 955 CI 0.9 to 1.37) for wide excision of the tumour site but favoured observation for complications related to the regional nodal basin (RR 14.36, 95% CI 6.74 to 30.59).\nOur secondary outcomes of disease-specific and disease-free survival, local recurrence and distant metastases were reported. There were 1347 participants in the intermediate-thickness melanoma group and 314 in the thick melanoma group.The study did not report the actual 10-year melanoma-specific survival rate for all included participants. Instead, melanoma-specific survival rates for each group of participants: intermediate-thickness melanoma (defined as 1.2 to 3.5 mm) and thick melanomas (defined as 3.50 mm or more) was reported.\nIn the intermediate-thickness melanoma group there was no statistically significant difference in disease-specific survival between study groups at 10 years (81.4 ± 1.5% versus 78.3 ± 2.0%, HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.09). In the thick melanoma group, again there was no statistically significant difference in disease-specific survival between study groups at 10 years (58.9.3 ± 4.1% versus 64.4 ± 4.6%, HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.64). Combining these groups there was some heterogeneity (I² = 34%) but the total HR was not statistically significant (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14).\nThe summary estimate for disease-free survival at 10 years favoured SLNB over observation in participants with intermediate-thickness and thick melanomas (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.89).\nWith regard to the rate of local and regional recurrence as the site of first recurrence, a benefit of SLNB uniformly existed in both groups of participants with intermediate-thickness and thick melanomas (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.69). This is in contrast with a uniformly unfavourable effect of SLNB with regard to the rate of distant metastases as site of first recurrence, in both groups of participants with intermediate-thickness and thick melanomas (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.72).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence of improved overall survival or melanoma-specific survival rates for participants with intermediate or thick melanomas who underwent SLNB compared with observation alone.\nDisease-free survival and rate of local and regional recurrence favoured SLNB in both groups of participants with intermediate-thickness and thick melanomas but short-term surgical morbidity was higher in the SLNB group, especially with regard to complications in the nodal basin.\nThe evidence for the outcomes of interest in this review is of low quality due to the risk of bias and imprecision of the estimated effects. Further research may have an important impact on our estimate of the effectiveness of SLNB in managing primary localised cutaneous melanoma. Currently this evidence is not sufficient to document a benefit of SLNB when compared to observation in individuals with primary localised cutaneous melanoma.\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 one published randomised controlled trial with 2001 participants with localised skin cancer who had undergone removal of the primary tumour and were then randomised to receive SLNB or observation. Participants testing positive for cancer cells in the sentinel lymph node then underwent CLND. Participants in the observation group underwent removal of the lymph nodes only on disease recurrence. The study did not report on our primary outcome of interest (overall survival), but it did report on our secondary outcomes of disease-specific survival (time to death only from melanoma), disease-free survival (time to first melanoma recurrence at any site), and recurrence." } ]
query-laysum	5863	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a life-long condition for which currently there is no cure. Patient educational interventions deliver structured information to their recipients. Evidence suggests patient education can have positive effects in other chronic diseases.\nObjectives\nTo identify the different types of educational interventions, how they are delivered, and to determine their effectiveness and safety in people with IBD.\nSearch methods\nOn 27 November 2022, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations to language, date, document type, or publication status. Any type of formal or informal educational intervention, lasting for any time, that had content focused directly on knowledge about IBD or skills needed for direct management of IBD or its symptoms was included. Delivery methods included face-to-face or remote educational sessions, workshops, guided study via the use of printed or online materials, the use of mobile applications, or any other method that delivers information to patients.\nSelection criteria\nAll published, unpublished and ongoing randomised control trials (RCTs) that compare educational interventions targeted at people with IBD to any other type of intervention or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager Web. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies with a total of 2708 randomised participants, aged 11 to 75 years. Two studies examined populations who all had ulcerative colitis (UC); the remaining studies examined a mix of IBD patients (UC and Crohn's disease). Studies considered a range of disease activity states. The length of the interventions ranged from 30 minutes to 12 months. Education was provided in the form of in-person workshops/lectures, and remotely via printed materials or multimedia, smartphones and internet learning.\nThirteen studies compared patient education interventions plus standard care against standard care alone. The interventions included seminars, information booklets, text messages, e-learning, a multi professional group-based programme, guidebooks, a staff-delivered programme based on an illustrated book, a standardised programme followed by group session, lectures alternating with group therapy, educational sessions based on an IBD guidebook, internet blog access and text messages, a structured education programme, and interactive videos.\nRisk of bias findings were concerning in all judgement areas across all studies. No single study was free of unclear or high of bias judgements.\nReporting of most outcomes in a homogeneous fashion was limited, with quality of life at study end reported most commonly in six of the 14 studies which allowed for meta-analysis, with all other outcomes reported in a more heterogeneous manner that limited wider analysis. Two studies provided data on disease activity. There was no clear difference in disease activity when patient education (n = 277) combined with standard care was compared to standard care (n = 202). Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in reducing disease activity in patients with IBD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20), moderate-certainty evidence.\nTwo studies provided continuous data on flare-up/relapse. There was no clear difference for flare-ups or relapse when patient education (n = 515) combined with standard care was compared to standard care (n = 507), as a continuous outcome. Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in reducing flare-ups or relapse in patients with IBD (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThree studies provided dichotomous data on flare-up/relapse. The evidence is very uncertain on whether patient education combined with standard care (n = 157) is different to standard care (n = 150) in reducing flare-ups or relapse in patients with IBD (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.18; very low-certainty evidence).\nSix studies provided data on quality of life. There was no clear difference in quality of life when patient education combined with standard care (n = 721) was compared to standard care (n = 643). Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in improving quality of life in patients with IBD (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.18; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe included studies did not report major differences on healthcare access. Medication adherence, patient knowledge and change in quality of life showed conflicting results that varied between no major differences and differences in favour of the educational interventions.\nOnly five studies reported on adverse events. Four reported zero total adverse events and one reported one case of breast cancer and two cases of surgery in their interventions groups, and zero adverse events in their control group.\nTwo studies compared delivery methods of patient education, specifically: web-based patient education interventions versus colour-printed books or text messages; and one study compared frequency of patient education, specifically: weekly educational text messages versus once every other week educational text messages. These did not show major differences for disease activity and quality of life.\nOther outcomes were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe ways in which patient educational support surrounding IBD may impact on disease outcomes is complex.\nThere is evidence that education added to standard care is probably of no benefit to disease activity or quality of life when compared with standard care, and may be of no benefit for occurrence of relapse when compared with standard care. However, as there was a paucity of specific information regarding the components of education or standard care, the utility of these findings is questionable.\nFurther research on the impact of education on our primary outcomes of disease activity, flare-ups/relapse and quality of life is probably not indicated. However, further research is necessary, which should focus on reporting details of the educational interventions and study outcomes that educational interventions could be directly targeted to address, such as healthcare access and medication adherence. These should be informed by direct engagement with stakeholders and people affected by Crohn's and colitis.\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 trials, with a total of 2708 participants who were aged 11 to 75 years. The education programmes were delivered via the internet, smartphones, books or videos, or through face-to-face lectures.\nThe length of the interventions ranged from a single 30-minute session to 12 months. Two studies examined populations where all the participants had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining studies examined people with a mix of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Thirteen of the studies compared patient education that was given alongside standard treatment to standard treatment alone.\nOur conclusions were that\n• Patient-education programmes probably have no additional benefits to usual medications and care for:\n- improving IBD symptoms;\n- avoiding relapses and flare-ups;\n- improving the quality of life of people with IBD.\n• We do not know if or how education impacts access to health care, missing medications, or overall patient knowledge of IBD, as these were not reported in a way that allowed us to make conclusions.\n• The safety of the education programmes was not well-reported, possibly because education programmes are unlikely to have any safety dangers.\nOne of the studies compared education given through the internet to education give through books, and another compared educational text message sent once every other week to texts sent weekly. The evidence for these comparisons was limited, and we could not reach meaningful conclusions." } ]
query-laysum	5864	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDisease-related malnutrition has been reported in 10% to 55% of people in hospital and the community and is associated with significant health and social-care costs. Dietary advice (DA) encouraging consumption of energy- and nutrient-rich foods rather than oral nutritional supplements (ONS) may be an initial treatment.\nObjectives\nTo examine evidence that DA with/without ONS in adults with disease-related malnutrition improves survival, weight, anthropometry and quality of life (QoL).\nSearch methods\nWe identified relevant publications from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching.\nLast search: 01 March 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of DA with/without ONS in adults with disease-related malnutrition in any healthcare setting compared with no advice, ONS or DA alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, extracted data and graded evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 94, mostly parallel, RCTs (102 comparisons; 10,284 adults) across many conditions possibly explaining the high heterogeneity. Participants were mostly older people in hospital, residential care and the community, with limited reporting on their sex. Studies lasted from one month to 6.5 years.\nDA versus no advice - 24 RCTs (3523 participants)\nMost outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 2.96), or at later time points. We had no three-month data, but advice may make little or no difference to hospitalisations, or days in hospital after four to six months and up to 12 months. A similar effect was seen for complications at up to three months, MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.32 to 0.32) and between four and six months. Advice may improve weight after three months, MD 0.97 kg (95% CI 0.06 to 1.87) continuing at four to six months and up to 12 months; and may result in a greater gain in fat-free mass (FFM) after 12 months, but not earlier. It may also improve global QoL at up to three months, MD 3.30 (95% CI 1.47 to 5.13), but not later.\nDA versus ONS - 12 RCTs (852 participants)\nAll outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.26), or at later time points. Either intervention may make little or no difference to hospitalisations at three months, RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.24), but ONS may reduce hospitalisations up to six months. There was little or no difference between groups in weight change at three months, MD -0.14 kg (95% CI -2.01 to 1.74), or between four to six months. Advice (one study) may lead to better global QoL scores but only after 12 months. No study reported days in hospital, complications or FFM.\nDA versus DA plus ONS - 22 RCTs (1286 participants)\nMost outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.80) or at later time points. At three months advice may lead to fewer hospitalisations, RR 1.70 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.77), but not at up to six months. There may be little or no effect on length of hospital stay at up to three months, MD -1.07 (95% CI -4.10 to 1.97). At three months DA plus ONS may lead to fewer complications, RR 0.75 (95% CI o.56 to 0.99); greater weight gain, MD 1.15 kg (95% CI 0.42 to 1.87); and better global QoL scores, MD 0.33 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.57), but this was not seen at other time points. There was no effect on FFM at three months.\nDA plus ONS if required versus no advice or ONS - 31 RCTs (3308 participants)\nEvidence was moderate- to low-certainty. There may be little or no effect on mortality at three months, RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.16) or at later time points. Similarly, little or no effect on hospitalisations at three months, RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.15), at four to six months and up to 12 months; on days in hospital at three months, MD -0.12 (95% CI -2.48 to 2.25) or for complications at any time point. At three months, advice plus ONS probably improve weight, MD 1.25 kg (95% CI 0.73 to 1.76) and may improve FFM, 0.82 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.29), but these effects were not seen later. There may be little or no effect of either intervention on global QoL scores at three months, but advice plus ONS may improve scores at up to 12 months.\nDA plus ONS versus no advice or ONS - 13 RCTs (1315 participants)\nEvidence was low- to very low-certainty. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.52) or at later time points. No study reported hospitalisations and there may be little or no effect on days in hospital after three months, MD -1.81 (95% CI -3.65 to 0.04) or six months. Advice plus ONS may lead to fewer complications up to three months, MD 0.42 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.89) (one study). Interventions may make little or no difference to weight at three months, MD 1.08 kg (95% CI -0.17 to 2.33); however, advice plus ONS may improve weight at four to six months and up to 12 months. Interventions may make little or no difference in FFM or global QoL scores at any time point.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence of an effect of any intervention on mortality. There may be weight gain with DA and with DA plus ONS in the short term, but the benefits of DA when compared with ONS are uncertain. The size and direction of effect and the length of intervention and follow-up required for benefits to emerge were inconsistent for all other outcomes. There were too few data for many outcomes to allow meaningful conclusions. Studies focusing on both patient-centred and healthcare outcomes are needed to address the questions in this review.\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": "Ill people often have a poor appetite or feel sick because of medicines or other treatments and eat less than usual. Eating less over a longer time can cause weight loss, malnutrition, more health problems and death. Healthcare professionals may offer advice about dietary changes to help people to re-establish good eating habits. They might recommend high-protein and high-energy foods so that these people can gain weight and improve their nutrition and general health. It is common for sick people to be offered ONS with or without advice about changing their food intake.\nTo find the best answer to our review question, we looked for studies that compared five different treatment options: dietary advice compared with no advice; dietary advice compared with ONS; dietary advice plus ONS compared with dietary advice; dietary advice plus ONS if appropriate compared with no dietary advice; and dietary advice plus ONS compared with no dietary advice and no ONS. To make these comparisons fair, we looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), where the people taking part had an equal chance (like the flip of a coin) of being in either group that was being compared." } ]
query-laysum	5865	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDisease recurrence and progression remain major challenges in the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Blue light-enhanced transurethral resection of bladder cancer (TURBT) is an approach to improve staging and achieve a complete resection of NMIBC.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of blue light-enhanced TURBT compared to white light-based TURBT in the treatment of NMIBC.\nSearch methods\nWe searched several medical literature databases, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase, as well as trial registers, including ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status until March 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials using blue light versus white light TURBT. Included participants had a high level of suspicion based on imaging or ‘visible diagnosis’ for primary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder or recurrent urothelial carcinoma of the bladder upon cytoscopy. We excluded studies in which blue light was used in a surveillance setting.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcomes were time to disease recurrence, time to disease progression, and serious surgical complications. Secondary outcomes were time to death from bladder cancer, any adverse events, and non-serious complications. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 16 randomized controlled trials involving a total of 4325 participants in the review. The studies compared blue light versus white light TURBT for treatment of NMIBC.\nPrimary outcomes\nBlue light TURBT may reduce the risk of disease recurrence over time (hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.81; low-certainty evidence) depending on baseline risk. For participants with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk NMIBC, this corresponded to 48 (66 fewer to 27 fewer), 109 (152 fewer to 59 fewer), and 147 (211 fewer to 76 fewer) fewer recurrences per 1000 participants when compared to white light TURBT, respectively.\nBlue light TURBT may also reduce the risk of disease progression over time (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence) depending on baseline risk. For participants with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk NMIBC, this corresponded to 1 (1 fewer to 0 fewer), 17 (25 fewer to 8 fewer), and 56 (81 fewer to 25 fewer) fewer progressions per 1000 participants when compared to white light TURBT, respectively.\nBlue light TURBT may have little or no effect on serious surgical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.14; low-certainty evidence). This corresponded to 10 fewer (19 fewer to 25 more) surgical complications per 1000 participants with blue light TURBT.\nSecondary outcomes\nBlue light TURBT may have little or no effect on the risk of death from bladder cancer over time (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence). This corresponded to 22 deaths per 1000 participants with white light TURBT and 10 fewer (17 fewer to 13 more) deaths per 1000 participants with blue light TURBT.\nWe are very uncertain how blue light TURBT affects the outcome adverse events of any grade (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence).\nNo analysis was possible for the outcome non-serious surgical complications, as it was not reported by any of the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBlue light-enhanced TURBT for the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer compared to white light-based TURBT may reduce the risk of disease recurrence and disease progression over time depending on baseline risk. There may be little or no effect on serious surgical complications. The certainty of evidence for our findings was low, meaning that future studies are likely change to the reported estimates of effect. Frequent issues that led to downgrading of the certainty of the evidence were study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The certainty of the evidence was low, meaning that future research would likely change our results." } ]
query-laysum	5866	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBell's palsy is an acute unilateral facial paralysis of unknown aetiology and should only be used as a diagnosis in the absence of any other pathology. As the proposed pathophysiology is swelling and entrapment of the nerve, some surgeons suggest surgical decompression of the nerve as a possible management option; this is ideally performed as soon as possible after onset. This is an update of a review first published in 2011, and last updated in 2013. This update includes evidence from one newly identified study.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of surgery in the early management of Bell's palsy.\nSearch methods\nOn 20 March 2020, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. We handsearched selected conference abstracts for the original version of the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs involving any surgical intervention for Bell's palsy. Trials compared surgical interventions to no treatment, later treatment (beyond three months), sham treatment, other surgical treatments or medical treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was complete recovery of facial palsy at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were complete recovery at three and six months, synkinesis and contracture at 12 months, psychosocial outcomes at 12 months, and side effects and complications of treatment.\nMain results\nTwo trials with 65 participants met the inclusion criteria; one was newly identified at this update. The first study randomised 25 participants into surgical or non-surgical (no treatment) groups using statistical charts. One participant declined surgery, leaving 24 evaluable participants. The second study quasi-randomised 53 participants; however, only 41 were evaluable as 12 declined the intervention they were allocated. These 41 participants were then divided into early surgery, late surgery or non-surgical (no treatment) groups using alternation. There was no mention on how alternation was decided. Neither study mentioned if there was any attempt to conceal allocation. Neither participants nor outcome assessors were blinded to the interventions in either study. There were no losses to follow-up in the first study. The second study lost three participants to follow-up, and 17 did not contribute to the assessment of secondary outcomes. Both studies were at high risk of bias.\nSurgeons in both studies used a retro-auricular/transmastoid approach to decompress the facial nerve. For the outcome recovery of facial palsy at 12 months, the evidence was uncertain. The first study reported no differences between the surgical and no treatment groups. The second study fully reported numerical data, but included no statistical comparisons between groups for complete recovery. There was no evidence of a difference for the early surgery versus no treatment comparison (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 11.11; P = 0.84; 33 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and for the early surgery versus late surgery comparison (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.60; P = 0.58; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We considered the effects of surgery on facial nerve function at 12 months very uncertain (2 RCTs, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nFurthermore, the second study reported adverse effects with a statistically significant decrease in lacrimal control in the surgical group within two to three months of denervation. Four participants in the second study had 35 dB to 50 dB of sensorineural hearing loss at 4000 Hz, and three had tinnitus. Because of the small numbers and trial design we also considered the adverse effects evidence very uncertain (2 RCTs, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-certainty evidence from RCTs or quasi-RCTs on surgery for the early management of Bell's palsy, and this is insufficient to decide whether surgical intervention is beneficial or harmful.\nFurther research into the role of surgical intervention is unlikely to be performed because spontaneous or medically supported recovery occurs in most cases.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and reliability of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Evidence on the effects of early surgery for Bell's palsy is of very-low reliability because the trials are small and have very serious limitations. We are unable to say whether recovery is better or worse after early surgery (before three months) than with no treatment, or after early surgery compared to later surgery.\nOne study reported side effects or complications of surgery. The reliability of this evidence was very low. Four participants who had surgery had some hearing loss, and three experienced tinnitus (ringing in the ears). The surgery group showed some loss of control of tear production in the eyes.\nWe have too little evidence to decide whether an operation would be helpful or harmful for people with early Bell's palsy. There is unlikely to be further research into the role of an operation because Bell's palsy usually recovers without treatment.\nThe evidence is up-to-date to March 2020." } ]
query-laysum	5867	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAnaemia is a prevalent health problem worldwide. Some types are preventable or controllable with iron supplementation (pills or drops), fortification (sprinkles or powders containing iron added to food) or improvements to dietary diversity and quality (e.g. education or counselling).\nObjectives\nTo summarise the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the benefits or harms of nutrition-specific interventions for preventing and controlling anaemia in anaemic or non-anaemic, apparently healthy populations throughout the life cycle.\nMethods\nIn August 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and 10 other databases for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in anaemic or non-anaemic, apparently healthy populations. We followed Cochrane methodology, extracting GRADE ratings where provided. The primary outcomes were haemoglobin (Hb) concentration, anaemia, and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA); secondary outcomes were iron deficiency (ID), severe anaemia and adverse effects (e.g. diarrhoea, vomiting).\nMain results\nWe included 75 systematic reviews, 33 of which provided GRADE assessments; these varied between high and very low.\nInfants (6 to 23 months; 13 reviews)\nIron supplementation increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and IDA in two reviews. Iron fortification of milk or cereals, multiple-micronutrient powder (MMNP), home fortification of complementary foods, and supplementary feeding increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia in six reviews. In one review, lipid-based nutrient supplementation (LNS) reduced the risk of anaemia. In another, caterpillar cereal increased Hb levels and reduced IDA prevalence. Food-based strategies (red meat and fortified cow's milk, beef) showed no evidence of a difference (1 review).\nPreschool and school-aged children (2 to 10 years; 8 reviews)\nDaily or intermittent iron supplementation increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and ID in two reviews. One review found no evidence of difference in Hb levels, but an increased risk of anaemia and ID for the intermittent regime. All suggested that zinc plus iron supplementation versus zinc alone, multiple-micronutrient (MMN)-fortified beverage versus control, and point-of-use fortification of food with iron-containing micronutrient powder (MNP) versus placebo or no intervention may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia and ID. Fortified dairy products and cereal food showed no evidence of a difference on the incidence of anaemia (1 review).\nAdolescent children (11 to 18 years; 4 reviews)\nCompared with no supplementation or placebo, five types of iron supplementation may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia (3 reviews). One review on prevention found no evidence of a difference in anaemia incidence on iron supplementation with or without folic acid, but Hb levels increased. Another suggested that nutritional supplementation and counselling reduced IDA. One review comparing MMN fortification with no fortification observed no evidence of a difference in Hb levels.\nNon-pregnant women of reproductive age (19 to 49 years; 5 reviews)\nTwo reviews suggested that iron therapy (oral, intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM)) increased Hb levels; one showed that iron folic acid supplementation reduced anaemia incidence; and another that daily iron supplementation with or without folic acid or vitamin C increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and ID. No review reported interventions related to fortification or dietary diversity and quality.\nPregnant women of reproductive age (15 to 49 years; 23 reviews)\nOne review apiece suggested that: daily iron supplementation with or without folic acid increased Hb levels in the third trimester or at delivery and in the postpartum period, and reduced the risk of anaemia, IDA and ID in the third trimester or at delivery; intermittent iron supplementation had no effect on Hb levels and IDA, but increased the risk of anaemia at or near term and ID, and reduced the risk of side effects; vitamin A supplementation alone versus placebo, no intervention or other micronutrient might increase maternal Hb levels and reduce the risk of maternal anaemia; MMN with iron and folic acid versus placebo reduced the risk of anaemia; supplementation with oral bovine lactoferrin versus oral ferrous iron preparations increased Hb levels and reduced gastrointestinal side effects; MNP for point-of-use fortification of food versus iron and folic acid supplementation might decrease Hb levels at 32 weeks' gestation and increase the risk of anaemia; and LNS versus iron or folic acid and MMN increased the risk of anaemia.\nMixed population (all ages; 22 reviews)\nIron supplementation versus placebo or control increased Hb levels in healthy children, adults, and elderly people (4 reviews). Hb levels appeared to increase and risk of anaemia and ID decrease in two reviews investigating MMN fortification versus placebo or no treatment, iron fortified flour versus control, double fortified salt versus iodine only fortified salt, and rice fortification with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice or no intervention. Each review suggested that fortified versus non-fortified condiments or noodles, fortified (sodium iron ethylenediaminetetraacetate; NaFeEDTA) versus non-fortified soy sauce, and double-fortified salt versus control salt may increase Hb concentration and reduce the risk of anaemia. One review indicated that Hb levels increased for children who were anaemic or had IDA and received iron supplementation, and decreased for those who received dietary interventions. Another assessed the effects of foods prepared in iron pots, and found higher Hb levels in children with low-risk malaria status in two trials, but no difference when comparing food prepared in non-cast iron pots in a high-risk malaria endemicity mixed population.\nThere was no evidence of a difference for adverse effects. Anaemia and malaria prevalence were rarely reported. No review focused on women aged 50 to 65 years plus or men (19 to 65 years plus).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to no treatment, daily iron supplementation may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia and IDA in infants, preschool and school-aged children and pregnant and non-pregnant women. Iron fortification of foods in infants and use of iron pots with children may have prophylactic benefits for malaria endemicity low-risk populations. In any age group, only a limited number of reviews assessed interventions to improve dietary diversity and quality. Future trials should assess the effects of these types of interventions, and consider the requirements of different populations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Preschool and school-aged children (2 to 10 years)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Two reviews suggested that daily or intermittent (e.g. 1 to 3 times per week) iron supplementation increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and ID. For daily versus intermittent iron supplementation, one review found no difference in Hb levels, but an increased risk of anaemia and ID for the intermittent regime. One review apiece found higher Hb levels and reduced risk of anaemia and ID for zinc plus iron supplementation versus zinc alone, multiple-micronutrient (MMN)-fortified beverages, and point-of-use fortification of food with iron-containing micronutrient powder (MNP)." } ]
query-laysum	5868	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGood neurological outcome after cardiac arrest is difficult to achieve. Interventions during the resuscitation phase and treatment within the first hours after the event are critical for a favourable prognosis. Experimental evidence suggests that therapeutic hypothermia is beneficial, and several clinical studies on this topic have been published. This review was originally published in 2009; updated versions were published in 2012 and 2016.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest in adults compared to standard treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults comparing therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest with standard treatment (control). We included studies with adults cooled by any method, applied within six hours of cardiac arrest, to target body temperatures of 32 °C to 34 °C. Good neurological outcome was defined as no or only minor brain damage allowing people to live an independent life.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. neurological recovery. Our secondary outcomes were 2. survival to hospital discharge, 3. quality of life, 4. cost-effectiveness and 5. adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty.\nMain results\nWe found 12 studies with 3956 participants reporting the effects of therapeutic hypothermia on neurological outcome or survival. There were some concerns about the quality of all the studies, and two studies had high risk of bias overall. When we compared conventional cooling methods versus any type of standard treatment (including a body temperature of 36 °C), we found that participants in the therapeutic hypothermia group were more likely to reach a favourable neurological outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.76; 11 studies, 3914 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low.\nWhen we compared therapeutic hypothermia with fever prevention or no cooling, we found that participants in the therapeutic hypothermia group were more likely to reach a favourable neurological outcome (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.23; 8 studies, 2870 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low.\nWhen we compared therapeutic hypothermia methods with temperature management at 36 °C, there was no evidence of a difference between groups (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.53; 3 studies; 1044 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low.\nAcross all studies, the incidence of pneumonia, hypokalaemia and severe arrhythmia was increased amongst participants receiving therapeutic hypothermia (pneumonia: RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.18; 4 trials, 3634 participants; hypokalaemia: RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.84; 2 trials, 975 participants; severe arrhythmia: RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.64; 3 trials, 2163 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low (pneumonia, severe arrhythmia) to very low (hypokalaemia). There were no differences in other reported adverse events between groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence suggests that conventional cooling methods to induce therapeutic hypothermia may improve neurological outcomes after cardiac arrest. We obtained available evidence from studies in which the target temperature was 32 °C to 34 °C.\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": "Some studies had quality shortcomings including a lack of information on how these studies were carried out and the use of inadequate methods to balance participants between cooling and no cooling groups. However, when we accounted for differences between studies, it became clear that these shortcomings had only a minor impact on the main results, and they did not change the overall findings." } ]
query-laysum	5869	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCervical cancer screening has traditionally been based on cervical cytology. Given the aetiological relationship between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical carcinogenesis, HPV testing has been proposed as an alternative screening test.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of HPV testing for detecting histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+), including adenocarcinoma in situ, in women participating in primary cervical cancer screening; and how it compares to the accuracy of cytological testing (liquid-based and conventional) at various thresholds.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a systematic literature search of articles in MEDLINE and Embase (1992 to November 2015) containing quantitative data and handsearched the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included comparative test accuracy studies if all women received both HPV testing and cervical cytology followed by verification of the disease status with the reference standard, if positive for at least one screening test. The studies had to include women participating in a cervical cancer screening programme who were not being followed up for previous cytological abnormalities.\nData collection and analysis\nWe completed a 2 x 2 table with the number of true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives for each screening test (HPV test and cytology) used in each study. We calculated the absolute and relative sensitivities and the specificities of the tests for the detection of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ at various thresholds and computed sensitivity (TP/(TP + TN) and specificity (TN/ (TN + FP) for each test separately. Relative sensitivity and specificity of one test compared to another test were defined as sensitivity of test-1 over sensitivity of test-2 and specificity of test-1 over specificity of test-2, respectively. To assess bias in the studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic test Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. We used a bivariate random-effects model for computing pooled accuracy estimates. This model takes into account the within- and between-study variability and the intrinsic correlation between sensitivity and specificity.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 40 studies in the review, with more than 140,000 women aged between 20 and 70 years old. Many studies were at low risk of bias. There were a sufficient number of included studies with adequate methodology to perform the following test comparisons: hybrid capture 2 (HC2) (1 pg/mL threshold) versus conventional cytology (CC) (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)+ and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL)+ thresholds) or liquid-based cytology (LBC) (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds), other high-risk HPV tests versus conventional cytology (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds) or LBC (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds). For CIN 2+, pooled sensitivity estimates for HC2, CC and LBC (ASCUS+) were 89.9%, 62.5% and 72.9%, respectively, and pooled specificity estimates were 89.9%, 96.6%, and 90.3%, respectively. The results did not differ by age of women (less than or greater than 30 years old), or in studies with verification bias. Accuracy of HC2 was, however, greater in European countries compared to other countries. The results for the sensitivity of the tests were heterogeneous ranging from 52% to 94% for LBC, and 61% to 100% for HC2. Overall, the quality of the evidence for the sensitivity of the tests was moderate, and high for the specificity.\nThe relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 2+ was 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24 to 1.86) and the relative specificity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.96), and versus LBC for CIN 2+ was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.26) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 3+ was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.91) and the relative specificity 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus LBC for CIN 3+ was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.28) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhilst HPV tests are less likely to miss cases of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+, these tests do lead to more unnecessary referrals. However, a negative HPV test is more reassuring than a negative cytological test, as the cytological test has a greater chance of being falsely negative, which could lead to delays in receiving the appropriate treatment. Evidence from prospective longitudinal studies is needed to establish the relative clinical implications of these tests.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We assessed studies comparing two tests to screen for cervical cancer: the HPV test (Human papillomavirus test) and the Pap test otherwise known as cervical smear or Papanicolaou test. The aim was to find out which test detects precancerous changes of the cervix more accurately." } ]
query-laysum	5870	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables.\nMain results\nIn total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups.\nThe overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%).\nUsing GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency.\nFor participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) −5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.56 to −4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD −0.96, 95% CI −1.22 to −0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD −1.40, 95% CI −1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD −1.60, 95% CI −1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI −5.91 to −0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD −1.06, 95% CI −1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP.\nIn participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD −42.00, 95% CI −87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD −2.42, 95% CI −3.90 to −0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference −12.30%, 95% CI −25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32).\nIn palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI −1.19 to −0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low).\nMost adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDifferent interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review updates our previous review. The evidence is up-to-date to July 2022." } ]
query-laysum	5871	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nExacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are a major driver of decline in health status and impose high costs on healthcare systems. Action plans offer a form of self-management that can be delivered in the outpatient setting to help individuals recognise and initiate early treatment for exacerbations, thereby reducing their impact.\nObjectives\nTo compare effects of an action plan for COPD exacerbations provided with a single short patient education component and without a comprehensive self-management programme versus usual care. Primary outcomes were healthcare utilisation, mortality and medication use. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, psychological morbidity, lung function and cost-effectiveness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register along with CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers. Searches are current to November 2015. We handsearched bibliographic lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing use of an action plan versus usual care for patients with a clinical diagnosis of COPD. We permitted inclusion of a single short education component that would allow individualisation of action plans according to management needs and symptoms of people with COPD, as well as ongoing support directed at use of the action plan.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies via phone call follow-up directed at facilitating use of the action plan.\nMain results\nThis updated review includes two additional studies (and 976 additional participants), for a total of seven parallel-group RCTs and 1550 participants, 66% of whom were male. Participants' mean age was 68 years and was similar among studies. Airflow obstruction was moderately severe in three studies and severe in four studies; mean post bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 54% predicted, and 27% of participants were current smokers. Four studies prepared individualised action plans, one study an oral plan and two studies standard written action plans. All studies provided short educational input on COPD, and two studies supplied ongoing support for action plan use. Follow-up was 12 months in four studies and six months in three studies.\nWhen compared with usual care, an action plan with phone call follow-up significantly reduced the combined rate of hospitalisations and emergency department (ED) visits for COPD over 12 months in one study with 743 participants (rate ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.79; high-quality evidence), but the rate of hospitalisations alone in this study failed to achieve statistical significance (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). Over 12 months, action plans significantly decreased the likelihood of hospital admission (odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; n = 897; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 19 (11 to 201)) and the likelihood of an ED visit (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78; n = 897; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB over 12 months 12 (9 to 26)) compared with usual care.\nResults showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality during 12 months (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.31; n = 1134; four RCTs; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence interval). Over 12 months, use of oral corticosteroids was increased with action plans compared with usual care (mean difference (MD) 0.74 courses, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; n = 200; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), and the cumulative prednisolone dose was significantly higher (MD 779.0 mg, 95% CI 533.2 to 10248; n = 743; one RCT; high-quality evidence). Use of antibiotics was greater in the intervention group than in the usual care group (subgrouped by phone call follow-up) over 12 months (MD 2.3 courses, 95% CI 1.8 to 2.7; n = 943; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence).\nSubgroup analysis by ongoing support for action plan use was limited; review authors noted no subgroup differences in the likelihood of hospital admission or ED visits or all-cause mortality over 12 months. Antibiotic use over 12 months showed a significant difference between subgroups in studies without and with ongoing support.\nOverall quality of life score on St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) showed a small improvement with action plans compared with usual care over 12 months (MD -2.8, 95% CI -0.8 to -4.8; n = 1009; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed no benefit for psychological morbidity as measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).\nAuthors' conclusions\nUse of COPD exacerbation action plans with a single short educational component along with ongoing support directed at use of the action plan, but without a comprehensive self-management programme, reduces in-hospital healthcare utilisation and increases treatment of COPD exacerbations with corticosteroids and antibiotics. Use of COPD action plans in this context is unlikely to increase or decrease mortality. Whether additional benefit is derived from periodic ongoing support directed at use of an action plan cannot be determined from the results of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence in this review is generally independent and reliable, and we are very or moderately certain about the results." } ]
query-laysum	5872	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChancroid is a genital ulcerative disease caused by Haemophilus ducreyi. This microorganism is endemic in Africa, where it can cause up to 10% of genital ulcers. Macrolides may be an effective alternative to treat chancroid and, based on their oral administration and duration of therapy, could be considered as first line therapy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of macrolides for treatment of H ducreyi infection in sexually active adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane STI Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Science to 30 October 2017. We also handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing macrolides in different regimens or with other therapeutic alternatives for chancroid.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements through consensus. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nSeven RCTs (875 participants) met our inclusion criteria, of which four were funded by industry. Five studies (664 participants) compared macrolides with ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, spectinomycin or thiamphenicol. Low quality evidence suggested there was no difference between the groups after treatment in terms of clinical cure (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.21; 2 studies, 340 participants with syndromic approach and RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.15; 5 studies, 348 participants with aetiological diagnosis) or improvement (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.52; 2 studies, 340 participants with syndromic approach and RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.51; 3 studies, 187 participants with aetiological diagnosis). Based on low and very low quality evidence, there was no difference between macrolides and any other antibiotic treatments for microbiological cure (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1 study, 45 participants) and minor adverse effects (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.24 to 7.51; 3 studies, 412 participants).\nTwo trials (269 participants) compared erythromycin with any other macrolide type. Low quality evidence suggested that, compared with azithromycin or rosaramicin, long courses of erythromycin did not increase clinical cure (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 2 studies, 269 participants with syndromic approach and RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; 2 studies, 211 participants with aetiological diagnosis), with a similar frequency of minor adverse effects between the groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.06; 1 trial, 101 participants). For this comparison, subgroup analysis found no difference between HIV-positive participants (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.43; 1 study, 38 participants) and HIV-negative participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14; 1 study, 89 participants). We downgraded the quality of evidence to low, because of imprecision, some limitations on risk of bias and heterogeneity.\nNone of the trials reported serious adverse events, cost effectiveness and participant satisfaction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present, the quality of the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of macrolides for treatment of H ducreyi infection in sexually active adults is low, implying that we are uncertain about the estimated treatment effect. There is no statistically significant difference between the available therapeutic alternatives for the treatment of sexually active adults with genital ulcers compatible with chancroid. Low quality evidence suggests that azithromycin could be considered as the first therapeutic alternative, based on their mono-dose oral administration, with a similar safety and effectiveness profile, when it is compared with long-term erythromycin use.\nDue to sparse available evidence about the safety and effectiveness of macrolides to treat H ducreyi infection in people with HIV, these results should be taken with caution.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There was no difference between the types of antibiotics in sexually active adults with genital ulcers compatible with chancroid. Erythromycin is usually the first choice for treatment but low quality evidence suggested that azithromycin (as a single dose, oral (by mouth) administration) had similar safety and effectiveness.\nBecause of sparse evidence about the safety and effectiveness of macrolides to treat Haemophilus ducreyi infection in people with HIV, these results should be taken with caution." } ]
query-laysum	5873	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUp to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual diagnosis can have an adverse effect on treatment and prognosis of SMI.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of risperidone compared to treatment with other antipsychotics (first-generation and other second-generation antipsychotics) used in people with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance misuse.\nSearch methods\nOn 6 January 2016 and 9 October 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers).\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised trials of risperidone versus any other antipsychotic in people with SMI and substance abuse (dual diagnosis). We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. We excluded trials that either did not meet our inclusion criteria or met our inclusion criteria but did not report any useable data.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently inspected citations and selected studies. For included studies, we independently extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of evidence, creating a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified eight randomised trials containing a total of 1073 participants with SMI and co-occurring substance misuse. Seven of these contributed useable data to the review. There was heterogeneity in trial design and measurement. Risperidone was compared to clozapine, olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine and ziprasidone. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents. Few trials examined participants with a dual diagnosis from the outset and most trials only contained separate analyses of subgroups with a dual diagnosis or were secondary data analyses of subgroups of people with a dual diagnosis from existing larger trials.\nFor risperidone versus clozapine we found no clear differences between these two antipsychotics in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n = 36, mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% CI −2.21 to 4.01, very low quality evidence), or reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 14, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.35, very low quality evidence), improvement in subjective well-being (1 RCT, n = 36, MD −6.00, 95% CI −14.82 to 2.82, very low quality evidence), numbers discontinuing medication (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 4.05, 95% CI 0.21 to 78.76, very low quality evidence), extrapyramidal side-effects (2 RCTs, n = 50, RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.30 to 24.08; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 45, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.51; I² = 34%, very low quality evidence). Clozapine was associated with lower levels of craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 28, MD 7.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 11.63, very low quality evidence).\nFor risperidone versus olanzapine we found no clear differences in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 RCT, n = 37, MD −1.50, 95% CI −3.82 to 0.82, very low quality evidence), reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 0.40, 95% CI −4.72 to 5.52, very low quality evidence), craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 5.00, 95% CI −4.86 to 14.86, very low quality evidence), parkinsonism (1 RCT, n = 16, MD −0.08, 95% CI −1.21 to 1.05, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCT, n = 77, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence).\nFor risperidone versus perphenazine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 281, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20, low-quality evidence).\nFor risperidone versus quetiapine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 294, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, low-quality evidence).\nFor risperidone versus ziprasidone, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 240, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10, low-quality evidence).\nFor many comparisons, important outcomes were missing; and no data were reported in any study for metabolic disturbances, global impression of illness severity, quality of life or mortality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is not sufficient good-quality evidence available to determine the effects of risperidone compared with other antipsychotics in people with a dual diagnosis. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents, leading to limited applicability to settings where access to second-generation agents is limited, such as in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, heterogeneity in trial design and measurement of outcomes precluded the use of many trials in our analyses. Future trials in this area need to be sufficiently powered but also need to conform to consistent methods in study population selection, use of measurement scales, definition of outcomes, and measures to counter risk of bias. Investigators should adhere to CONSORT guidelines in the reporting of results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this review aim to answer?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "How effective and safe is risperidone compared to other antipsychotics for treating people with a dual diagnosis?" } ]
query-laysum	5874	[ { "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: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In those with recurrent prolapse after a hysterectomy, sacral colpopexy (abdominal procedure) was associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse, prolapse on examination, and urinary stress incontinence (SUI) compared to vaginal procedures. If 8% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 18% (16% to 32%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures. If 6% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, 14% (8% to 18%) would require it after vaginal procedures. If 17% of women have SUI after sacral colpopexy 31% (19% to 49%) would have it after vaginal apical surgery.\nSacral colpopexy can be utilised in those with uterine prolapse in the following ways: with uterine preservation (sacral hysteropexy), with subtotal hysterectomy (body of the uterus removed, and the cervix retained) or after total hysterectomy. However, the limited data are inconclusive of any benefit when compared to alternative vaginal interventions.\nThe limited evidence does not support the use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repairs without mesh (vaginal repairs utilising sutures). The evidence was imprecise, but suggests that if 18% of women are aware of prolapse after surgery without mesh, between 6% and 59% will be aware after surgery with mesh. If 10% of women require repeat surgery for prolapse after surgery without mesh, 3% to 11% are likely to do so after surgery with mesh. We found no clear evidence that surgery with mesh decreases recurrent prolapse. Mesh was associated with a 17.5% rate of mesh exposure (mesh eroding into the vagina).\nThe evidence was inconclusive in comparisons of uterine preserving surgery versus vaginal hysterectomy, and different access routes for performing sacral colpopexy." } ]
query-laysum	5875	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLong-term mechanical ventilation is the most common situation for which tracheostomy is indicated for patients in intensive care units (ICUs). 'Early' and 'late' tracheostomies are two categories of the timing of tracheostomy. Evidence on the advantages attributed to early versus late tracheostomy is somewhat conflicting but includes shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of early (≤ 10 days after tracheal intubation) versus late tracheostomy (> 10 days after tracheal intubation) in critically ill adults predicted to be on prolonged mechanical ventilation with different clinical conditions.\nSearch methods\nThis is an update of a review last published in 2012 (Issue 3, The Cochrane Library) with previous searches run in December 2010. In this version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 8); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to August 2013); EMBASE (via Ovid) (1974 to August 2013); LILACS (1986 to August 2013); PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) at www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au (1999 to August 2013) and CINAHL (1982 to August 2013). We reran the search in October 2014 and will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs or QRCTs) comparing early tracheostomy (two to 10 days after intubation) against late tracheostomy (> 10 days after intubation) for critically ill adult patients expected to be on prolonged mechanical ventilation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data and conducted a quality assessment. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were conducted for mortality, time spent on mechanical ventilation and time spent in the ICU.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs (N = 1977 participants). At the longest follow-up time available in these studies, evidence of moderate quality from seven RCTs (n = 1903) showed lower mortality rates in the early as compared with the late tracheostomy group (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98; P value 0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) ≅ 11). Divergent results were reported on the time spent on mechanical ventilation and no differences were noted for pneumonia, but the probability of discharge from the ICU was higher at day 28 in the early tracheostomy group (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55; P value 0.006; NNTB ≅ 8).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe whole findings of this systematic review are no more than suggestive of the superiority of early over late tracheostomy because no information of high quality is available for specific subgroups with particular characteristics.\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 August 2013. We included eight studies with a total of 1977 patients allocated to either early or late tracheostomy. Four studies received financial support from different institutions that did not participate in the study or in preparing the content of the final publications. We reran the search in October 2014. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review." } ]
query-laysum	5876	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe intensive care unit (ICU) stay has been linked with a number of physical and psychological sequelae, known collectively as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). Specific ICU follow-up services are relatively recent developments in health systems, and may have the potential to address PICS through targeting unmet health needs arising from the experience of the ICU stay. There is currently no single accepted model of follow-up service and current aftercare programmes encompass a variety of interventions and materials. There is uncertain evidence about whether follow-up services effectively address PICS, and this review assesses this.\nObjectives\nOur main objective was to assess the effectiveness of follow-up services for ICU survivors that aim to identify and address unmet health needs related to the ICU period. We aimed to assess effectiveness in relation to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mortality, depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), physical function, cognitive function, ability to return to work or education and adverse effects.\nOur secondary objectives were to examine different models of follow-up services. We aimed to explore: the effectiveness of service organisation (physician- versus nurse-led, face-to-face versus remote, timing of follow-up service); differences related to country (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries); and effect of delirium, which can subsequently affect cognitive function, and the effect of follow-up services may differ for these participants.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL on 7 November 2017. We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies, and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and non-randomised studies with adult participants, who had been discharged from hospital following an ICU stay. We included studies that compared an ICU follow-up service using a structured programme and co-ordinated by a healthcare professional versus no follow-up service or standard care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included five studies (four randomised studies; one non-randomised study), for a total of 1707 participants who were ICU survivors with a range of illness severities and conditions. Follow-up services were led by nurses in four studies or a multidisciplinary team in one study. They included face-to-face consultations at home or in a clinic, or telephone consultations or both. Each study included at least one consultation (weekly, monthly, or six-monthly), and two studies had up to eight consultations. Although the design of follow-up service consultations differed in each study, we noted that each service included assessment of participants' needs with referrals to specialist support if required.\nIt was not feasible to blind healthcare professionals or participants to the intervention and we did not know whether this may have introduced performance bias. We noted baseline differences (two studies), and services included additional resources (two studies), which may have influenced results, and one non-randomised study had high risk of selection bias.\nWe did not combine data from randomised studies with data from one non-randomised study. Follow-up services for improving long-term outcomes in ICU survivors may make little or no difference to HRQoL at 12 months (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.1; 1 study; 286 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found moderate-certainty evidence from five studies that they probably also make little or no difference to all-cause mortality up to 12 months after ICU discharge (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22; 4 studies; 1289 participants; and in one non-randomised study 79/259 deaths in the intervention group, and 46/151 in the control group) and low-certainty evidence from four studies that they may make little or no difference to PTSD (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, 703 participants, 3 studies; and one non-randomised study reported less chance of PTSD when a follow-up service was used).\nIt is uncertain whether using a follow-up service reduces depression and anxiety (3 studies; 843 participants), physical function (4 studies; 1297 participants), cognitive function (4 studies; 1297 participants), or increases the ability to return to work or education (1 study; 386 participants), because the certainty of this evidence is very low. No studies measured adverse effects.\nWe could not assess our secondary objectives because we found insufficient studies to justify subgroup analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence, from a limited number of studies, to determine whether ICU follow-up services are effective in identifying and addressing the unmet health needs of ICU survivors. We found five ongoing studies which are not included in this review; these ongoing studies may increase our certainty in the effect in future updates. Because of limited data, we were unable to explore whether one design of follow-up service is preferable to another, or whether a service is more effective for some people than others, and we anticipate that future studies may also vary in design. We propose that future studies are designed with robust methods (for example randomised studies are preferable) and consider only one variable (the follow-up service) compared to standard care; this would increase confidence that the effect is due to the follow-up service rather than concomitant therapies.\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": "Overall, we found few studies, each of which used a different design of a follow-up service, and so our confidence in deciding whether ICU follow-up services are effective was limited. We found no evidence of whether using a follow-up service after a stay in the ICU improves a person's health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or physical and mental function. We found no evidence of whether using a follow-up service reduces the number of people who die or the number of people who return to work 12 months after ICU discharge.\nDuring our search of the literature, we found five ongoing studies. These are not included in this review, but including them in future updates may increase the certainty of the evidence and our confidence in deciding whether ICU follow-up services are effective." } ]
query-laysum	5877	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRefractory peptic ulcers are ulcers in the stomach or duodenum that do not heal after eight to 12 weeks of medical treatment or those that are associated with complications despite medical treatment. Recurrent peptic ulcers are peptic ulcers that recur after healing of the ulcer. Given the number of deaths due to peptic ulcer-related complications and the long-term complications of medical treatment (increased incidence of fracture), it is unclear whether medical or surgical intervention is the better treatment option in people with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of medical versus surgical treatment for people with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Upper GI and Pancreatic Diseases group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until September 2015 to identify randomised trials and non-randomised studies, using search strategies. We also searched the references of included studies to identify further studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing medical treatment with surgical treatment in people with refractory or recurrent peptic ulcer, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We planned to calculate the risk ratio, mean difference, standardised mean difference, or hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with Review Manager 5 based on intention-to-treat analysis.\nMain results\nWe included only one non-randomised study published 30 years ago in the review. This study included 77 participants who had gastric ulcer and in whom medical therapy (histamine H2 receptor blockers, antacids, and diet) had failed after an average duration of treatment of 29 months. The authors do not state whether these were recurrent or refractory ulcers. It appears that the participants did not have previous complications such as bleeding or perforation. Of the 77 included participants, 37 participants continued to have medical therapy while 40 participants received surgical therapy (antrectomy with or without vagotomy; subtotal gastrectomy with or without vagotomy; vagotomy; pyloroplasty and suture of the ulcer; suture or closure of ulcer without vagotomy or excision of the ulcer; proximal gastric or parietal cell vagotomy alone; suture or closure of the ulcer with proximal gastric or parietal cell vagotomy). Whether to use medical or surgical treatment was determined by participant's or treating physician's preference.\nThe study authors reported that two participants in the medical treatment group (2 out of 37; 5.4%) had gastric cancer, which was identified by repeated biopsy. They did not report the proportion of participants who had gastric cancer in the surgical treatment group. They also did not report the implications of the delayed diagnosis of gastric cancer in the medical treatment group. They did not report any other outcomes of interest for this review (that is health-related quality of life (using any validated scale), adverse events and serious adverse events, peptic ulcer bleeding, peptic ulcer perforation, abdominal pain, and long-term mortality).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no studies that provide the relative benefits and harms of medical versus surgical treatment for recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers. Studies that evaluate the natural history of recurrent and refractory peptic ulcers are urgently required to determine whether randomised controlled trials comparing medical versus surgical management in patients with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers or both are necessary. Such studies will also provide information for the design of such randomised controlled trials. A minimum follow-up of two to three years will allow the calculation of the incidence of complications and gastric cancer (in gastric ulcers only) in recurrent and refractory peptic ulcers. In addition to complications related to treatment and disease, health-related quality of life and loss of productivity should also be measured.\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": "Since the only study that compared medical and surgical treatment in people with refractory or recurrent ulcers did not report any of the outcomes in a sufficiently detailed manner, we were not able to assess the quality of evidence in a formal way." } ]
query-laysum	5878	[ { "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: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "It was not possible to conclude whether or not survival following nipple-sparing mastectomy was similar to traditional mastectomy and skin-sparing mastectomy. Results were also inconclusive for differences in local recurrence and adverse events following different types of mastectomy. In practice the decision to select nipple-sparing mastectomy over other types of mastectomy should be done through shared decision making after extensive discussion of the risks and benefits. Generally the nipple-sparing mastectomy studies reported a favourable aesthetic result and a gain in quality of life compared with the other types of mastectomy. However, due to the lack of numerical data, it was not possible to pool the results of different studies." } ]
query-laysum	5879	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke can affect people’s ability to swallow, resulting in passage of some food and drink into the airway. This can cause choking, chest infection, malnutrition and dehydration, reduced rehabilitation, increased risk of anxiety and depression, longer hospital stay, increased likelihood of discharge to a care home, and increased risk of death. Early identification and management of disordered swallowing reduces risk of these difficulties.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\n• To determine the diagnostic accuracy and the sensitivity and specificity of bedside screening tests for detecting risk of aspiration associated with dysphagia in people with acute stroke\nSecondary objectives\n• To assess the influence of the following sources of heterogeneity on the diagnostic accuracy of bedside screening tools for dysphagia\n- Patient demographics (e.g. age, gender)\n- Time post stroke that the study was conducted (from admission to 48 hours) to ensure only hyperacute and acute stroke swallow screening tools are identified\n- Definition of dysphagia used by the study\n- Level of training of nursing staff (both grade and training in the screening tool)\n- Low-quality studies identified from the methodological quality checklist\n- Type and threshold of index test\n- Type of reference test\nSearch methods\nIn June 2017 and December 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; the reference lists of included studies; and grey literature sources. We contacted experts in the field to identify any ongoing studies and those potentially missed by the search strategy.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that were single-gate or two-gate studies comparing a bedside screening tool administered by nurses or other healthcare professionals (HCPs) with expert or instrumental assessment for detection of aspiration associated with dysphagia in adults with acute stroke admitted to hospital.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened each study using the eligibility criteria and then extracted data, including the sensitivity and specificity of each index test against the reference test. A third review author was available at each stage to settle disagreements. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool. We identified insufficient studies for each index test, so we performed no meta-analysis. Diagnostic accuracy data were presented as sensitivities and specificities for the index tests.\nMain results\nOverall, we included 25 studies in the review, four of which we included as narratives (with no accuracy statistics reported). The included studies involved 3953 participants and 37 screening tests. Of these, 24 screening tests used water only, six used water and other consistencies, and seven used other methods. For index tests using water only, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 46% to 100% and from 43% to 100%, respectively; for those using water and other consistencies, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 75% to 100% and from 69% to 90%, respectively; and for those using other methods, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 29% to 100% and from 39% to 86%, respectively. Twenty screening tests used expert assessment or the Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability (MASA) as the reference, six used fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), and 11 used videofluoroscopy (VF). Fifteen screening tools had an outcome of aspiration risk, 20 screening tools had an outcome of dysphagia, and two narrative papers did not report the outcome. Twenty-one screening tests were carried out by nurses, and 16 were carried out by other HCPs (not including speech and language therapists (SLTs)).\nWe assessed a total of six studies as low risk across all four QUADAS-2 risk of bias domains, and we rated 15 studies as low concern across all three applicability domains.\nNo single study demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity with low risk of bias for all domains. The best performing combined water swallow and instrumental tool was the Bedside Aspiration test (n = 50), the best performing water plus other consistencies tool was the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS; n = 30), and the best water only swallow screening tool was the Toronto Bedside Swallowing Screening Test (TOR-BSST; n = 24). All tools demonstrated combined highest sensitivity and specificity and low risk of bias for all domains. However, clinicians should be cautious in their interpretation of these findings, as these tests are based on single studies with small sample sizes, which limits the estimates of reliability of screening tests.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe were unable to identify a single swallow screening tool with high and precisely estimated sensitivity and specificity based on at least one trial with low risk of bias. However, we were able to offer recommendations for further high-quality studies that are needed to improve the accuracy and clinical utility of bedside screening tools.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "How accurate are swallow screening tools for detecting when food and drink enter the airway in people with acute stroke?" } ]
query-laysum	5880	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe impact of lymphadenectomy extent on the survival of patients with primary resectable gastric carcinoma is debated.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the evidence on the impact of the three main types of progressively more extended lymph node dissection (that is, D1, D2 and D3 lymphadenectomy) on the clinical outcome of patients with primary resectable carcinoma of the stomach. The primary objective was to assess the impact of lymphadenectomy extent on survival (overall survival [OS], disease specific survival [DSS] and disease free survival [DFS]). The secondary aim was to assess the impact of lymphadenectomy on post-operative mortality.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE until 2001, including references from relevant articles and conference proceedings. We also contacted known researchers in the field. For the updated review, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2001 to February 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the three main types of lymph node dissection (i.e., D1, D2 and D3 lymphadenectomy) in patients with primary non-metastatic resectable carcinoma of the stomach.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data from the included studies. Hazard ratios (HR) and relative risks (RR) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure differences in survival and mortality rates between trial arms, respectively. Potential sources of between-study heterogeneity were investigated by means of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The same two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration and the quality of the overall evidence based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.\nMain results\nEight RCTs (enrolling 2515 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Three RCTs (all performed in Asian countries) compared D3 with D2 lymphadenectomy: data suggested no significant difference in OS between these two types of lymph node dissection (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21), with no significant difference in postoperative mortality (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.73). Data for DFS were available only from one trial and for no trial were DSS data available. Five RCTs (n = 3 European; n = 2 Asian) compared D2 to D1 lymphadenectomy: OS (n = 5; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17) and DFS (n=3; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07) findings suggested no significant difference between these two types of lymph node dissection. In contrast, D2 lymphadenectomy was associated with a significantly better DSS compared to D1 lymphadenectomy (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92), the quality of the body of evidence being moderate; however, D2 lymphadenectomy was also associated with a higher postoperative mortality rate (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.04).\nAuthors' conclusions\nD2 lymphadenectomy can improve DSS in patients with resectable carcinoma of the stomach, although the increased incidence of postoperative mortality reduces its therapeutic benefit.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The quality of the evidence was moderate due to an intermediate level of result heterogeneity across the included trials." } ]
query-laysum	5881	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFactor Xa inhibitors and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are now recommended in treatment guidelines for preventing stroke and systemic embolic events in people with atrial fibrillation (AF). This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment with factor Xa inhibitors versus VKAs for preventing cerebral or systemic embolic events in people with AF.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group and the Cochrane Heart Group (September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (August 2017), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2017), and Embase (1980 to April 2017). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies, authors and sponsors of relevant published trials. We used outcome data from marketing authorisation applications of apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban that were submitted to regulatory authorities in Europe and the USA.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared the effects of long-term treatment (lasting more than four weeks) with factor Xa inhibitors versus VKAs for preventing cerebral and systemic embolism in people with AF.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary efficacy outcome was the composite endpoint of all strokes and systemic embolic events. Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of the trials and the risk of bias. We calculated a weighted estimate of the typical treatment effect across trials using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) by means of a fixed-effect model. In case of moderate or high heterogeneity of treatment effects, we used a random-effects model to compare the overall treatment effects. We also performed a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding any open-label studies.\nMain results\nWe included data from 67,688 participants randomised into 13 RCTs. The included trials directly compared dose-adjusted warfarin with either apixaban, betrixaban, darexaban, edoxaban, idraparinux, idrabiotaparinux, or rivaroxaban. The majority of the included data (approximately 90%) was from apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.\nThe composite primary efficacy endpoint of all strokes (both ischaemic and haemorrhagic) and non-central nervous systemic embolic events was reported in all of the included studies. Treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly decreased the number of strokes and systemic embolic events compared with dose-adjusted warfarin in participants with AF (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; 13 studies; 67,477 participants; high-quality evidence).\nTreatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of major bleedings compared with warfarin (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.84; 13 studies; 67,396 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was, however, statistically significant and high heterogeneity (I2 = 83%). When we repeated this analysis using a random-effects model, it did not show a statistically significant decrease in the number of major bleedings (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17). A pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding all open-label studies showed that treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of major bleedings compared with warfarin (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81), but high heterogeneity was also observed in this analysis (I2 = 72%). The same sensitivity analysis using a random-effects model also showed a statistically significant decrease in the number of major bleedings in participants treated with factor Xa inhibitors (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96).\nTreatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the risk of intracranial haemorrhages (ICHs) compared with warfarin (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59; 12 studies; 66,259 participants; high-quality evidence). We observed moderate, but statistically significant heterogeneity (I2 = 55%). The pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding open-label studies showed that treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor significantly reduced the number of ICHs compared with warfarin (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.56), with low, non-statistically significant heterogeneity (I2 = 27%).\nTreatment with a factor Xa inhibitor also significantly reduced the number of all-cause deaths compared with warfarin (OR 0.89, 95% 0.83 to 0.95; 10 studies; 65,624 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTreatment with factor Xa inhibitors significantly reduced the number of strokes and systemic embolic events compared with warfarin in people with AF. The absolute effect of factor Xa inhibitors compared with warfarin treatment was, however, rather small. Factor Xa inhibitors also reduced the number of ICHs, all-cause deaths and major bleedings compared with warfarin, although the evidence for a reduction in the latter is less robust.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We considered the quality of evidence in our review as moderate to high. The studies that we included were generally large to very large. We found that the results from the larger studies were generally similar and this strengthened our findings. Finally, we are confident that we included all relevant studies in our review and did not miss any important studies." } ]
query-laysum	5882	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends mass drug administration (MDA), giving a drug at regular intervals to a whole population, as part of the strategy for several disease control programmes in low- and middle-income countries. MDA is currently WHO policy for areas endemic with lymphatic filariasis, which is a parasitic disease that can result in swollen limbs and disability. The success depends on communities adhering to the drugs given, and this will be influenced by the perception of the drug, the programme, and those delivering it.\nObjectives\nTo synthesize qualitative research evidence about community experience with, and understanding and perception of, MDA programmes for lymphatic filariasis.\nTo explore whether programme design and delivery influence the community experience identified in the analysis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases up to 8 April 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nThis review synthesized qualitative research and mixed-methods studies when it was possible to extract qualitative data. Eligible studies explored community experiences, perceptions, or attitudes towards MDA programmes for lymphatic filariasis in any country, conducted between 2000 and 2019.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data on study design including: authors, aims, participants, methods, and qualitative data collection methods. We also described programme delivery factors including: country, urban or rural setting, endemicity, drug regimen, rounds of MDA received at the time of the study, who delivered the drugs, how the drugs were delivered, use of health education, and sensitization and adherence monitoring.\nWe conducted a thematic analysis and developed codes inductively using ATLAS.ti software. We examined codes for underlying ideas, connections, and interpretations and, from this, generated analytical themes. We assessed the confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach, and produced a conceptual model to display our findings.\nMain results\nFrom 902 results identified in the search, 29 studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered a broad range of countries in Africa, South-East Asia, and South America, and explored the views and experiences of community members and community drug distributors in low-income countries endemic for lymphatic filariasis. Four themes emerged.\nPeople weigh up benefits and harms before participating. People understand the potential benefits in terms of relief of suffering, stigma, and avoiding costs (high confidence); however, these theoretical benefits do not always mesh with their experiences (high confidence). In particular, adverse effects are frightening and unwelcome (high confidence); and these effects are amplified through rumour and social media (moderate confidence).\nMany people are suspicious of MDA programmes. When people lack a scientific explanation for the programme and their experiences of it, they often develop social explanations instead. These are largely shaped on the historical backdrop and level of trust people have in relevant authority figures (high confidence), although some have unwavering faith in their government and, by extension, the programme (moderate confidence).\nProgrammes expect compliance, and this can become coercive and blaming. Health workers and community members stigmatize non-compliance, which can become coercive (moderate confidence), so communities may appear to comply publicly, but privately reject treatment (moderate confidence).\nCommunity distributors are often not respected or valued. They have little authority (moderate confidence), and the behaviour of some distributors damages the MDA programme's reputation (high confidence). Communities want information about programmes to help make decisions about participation, but drug distributors are not sufficiently informed, or skilled in this communication (high confidence).\nWe intended to assess whether programme designs influenced communities' perceptions of the programme and decision to adhere but were unable to do so as few studies adequately reported the design and implementation of the local programme.\nWe have moderate to high confidence in the evidence contributing to the review themes and subthemes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAdherence with MDA for filariasis is influenced by individual direct experience of benefit and harm; social influences in the community; political influences and their relationship to government; and historical influences. Fear of adverse effects was frequently described and this appears to be particularly important for communities. When views were negative, we were surprised by the strength of feeling expressed. Enthusiasm for these schemes as a strategy in global policy needs debate in the light of these findings.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this synthesis?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Mass drug administration (MDA) involves the regular delivery of treatment medicines to whole populations, regardless of whether an individual has the disease or not, and aims to prevent onward transmission (passing from one person to another). It is currently recommended for some disease control programmes in low- and middle-income countries, including the parasitic disease lymphatic filariasis, which can result in swollen limbs and disability. For governments and their health service this is a large logistical task requiring money and staff, and success depends on communities taking the medicines given.\nIn this review, we looked for studies that explored how people view and experience these programmes. We collected all relevant studies and included 29 in this synthesis." } ]
query-laysum	5883	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTetanus is an acute, often fatal, disease caused by an exotoxin produced by Clostridium tetani. It occurs in newborn infants born to mothers who do not have sufficient circulating antibodies to protect the infant passively, by transplacental transfer. Prevention may be possible by the vaccination of pregnant or non-pregnant women, or both, with tetanus toxoid, and the provision of clean delivery services. Tetanus toxoid consists of a formaldehyde-treated toxin that stimulates the production of antitoxin.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of tetanus toxoid, administered to women of reproductive age or pregnant women, to prevent cases of, and deaths from, neonatal tetanus.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2015), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 1), PubMed (1966 to 28 January 2015), EMBASE (1974 to 28 January 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of tetanus toxoid in pregnant women or women of reproductive age on numbers of neonatal tetanus cases and deaths.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.\nMain results\nTwo effectiveness trials (9823 infants) and one safety trial (48 mothers) were included. The main outcomes were measured on infants born to a subset of those randomised women who became pregnant during the course of the studies. For our primary outcomes, there was no high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments.\nOne study (1182 infants) assessed the effectiveness of tetanus toxoid in comparison with influenza vaccine in preventing neonatal tetanus deaths. A single dose did not provide significant protection against neonatal tetanus deaths, (risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.24; 494 infants; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, a two- or three-dose course did provide protection against neonatal deaths, (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; 688 infants; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence). Administration of a two- or three-dose course resulted in significant protection when all causes of death are considered as an outcome (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55; 688 infants; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence). No effect was detected on causes of death other than tetanus. Cases of neonatal tetanus after at least one dose of tetanus toxoid were reduced in the tetanus toxoid group, (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.40; 1182 infants; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence).\nAnother study, involving 8641 children, assessed the effectiveness of tetanus-diphtheria toxoid in comparison with cholera toxoid in preventing neonatal mortality after one or two doses. Neonatal mortality was reduced in the tetanus-diphtheria toxoid group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.82). In preventing deaths at four to 14 days, neonatal mortality was reduced again in the tetanus-diphtheria toxoid group (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55). The quality of evidence as assessed using GRADE was found to be low.\nThe third small trial assessed that pain at injection site was reported more frequently among pregnant women who received tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis than placebo (RR 5.68, 95% CI 1.54 to 20.94; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvailable evidence supports the implementation of immunisation practices on women of reproductive age or pregnant women in communities with similar, or higher, levels of risk of neonatal tetanus, to the two study sites.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our review evaluated the existing evidence on immunisation with tetanus toxoid in women of reproductive age for the prevention of tetanus and death in newborn babies and to determine whether serious harms are associated with tetanus toxoid exposure." } ]
query-laysum	5884	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPublished audits have demonstrated that corneal abrasions are a common presenting eye complaint. Eye patches are often recommended for treating corneal abrasions despite the lack of evidence for their use. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effects of the eye patch when used to treat corneal abrasions.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of patching for corneal abrasion on healing and pain relief.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2016), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenGrey) (January 1995 to May 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 9 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of included studies, unpublished 'grey' literature and conference proceedings and contacted pharmaceutical companies for details of unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared patching the eye with no patching to treat simple corneal abrasions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Investigators were contacted for further information regarding the quality of trials. The primary outcome was healing at 24, 48 and 72 hours while secondary outcomes included measures of pain, quality of life and adverse effects. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials which randomised a total of 1080 participants in the review. Four trials were conducted in the United Kingdom, another four in the United States of America, two in Canada, one in Brazil and one in Switzerland. Seven trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains and one trial was judged to be low risk of bias in all domains. The rest were a combination of low risk or unclear.\nPeople receiving a patch may be less likely to have a healed corneal abrasion after 24 hours compared to those not receiving a patch (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.00, 7 trials, 531 participants, low certainty evidence). Similar numbers of people in the patch and no-patch groups were healed by 48 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02, 6 trials, 497 participants, moderate certainty evidence) and 72 hours (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05, 4 trials, 430 participants, moderate certainty evidence). Participants receiving a patch took slightly longer to heal but the difference was small and probably unimportant (mean difference (MD) 0.14 days longer, 95% CI 0 to 0.27 days longer, 6 trials, 642 participants, moderate certainty evidence).\nTen trials reported pain scores. Most studies reported pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). It was not possible to pool the data because it was skewed. In general, similar pain ratings were seen between patch and no-patch groups. Data from two trials reporting presence or absence of pain at 24 hours was inconclusive. There was a higher risk of reported pain in the patch group but wide confidence intervals compatible with higher or lower risk of pain (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65, 2 trials, 193 participants, low certainty evidence). Five trials compared analgesic use between the patch and no-patch groups. Data from three of these trials could be combined and suggested similar analgesic use in the patch and no-patch groups but with some uncertainty (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32, 256 participants, low certainty evidence). Frequently reported symptoms included photophobia, lacrimation, foreign body sensation and blurred vision but there was little evidence to suggest any difference in these symptoms in people with or without a patch.\nActivities of daily living (ADL) were assessed in one study involving children. There was little difference in ADL with the exception of walking which was reported to be more difficult with a patch on: VAS 1.7 cm (SD 2.1) versus 0.3 cm (SD 0.7).\nComplication rates were low across studies and there is uncertainty about the relative effects of patching or not patching with respect to these (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 12.05, 8 trials, 660 participants, low certainty evidence). Three trials reporting rates of compliance to treatment found that 22% of participants did not have their eye patches during follow-up. No-patch groups generally received more adjuvant treatment with antibiotics or cycloplegics, or both, than the patch group. There were limited data on the effect of patching on abrasions greater than 10mm2 in size.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTrials included in this review suggest that treating simple corneal abrasions with a patch may not improve healing or reduce pain. It must be noted that, in these trials, participants who did not receive a patch were more likely to receive additional treatment, for example with antibiotics. Overall we judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to low. Further research should focus on designing and implementing better quality trials and examining the effectiveness of patching for large abrasions.\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": "The cornea is the transparent outer layer of the eye. Corneal abrasions can result from scratches or superficial damage to the cornea. These are common problems which can be very painful. A common treatment option is to place a patch over the eye. This may have an impact on how long it takes for the abrasion to heal. It may also provide pain relief." } ]
query-laysum	5885	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis (CF) is the commonest inherited life-shortening illness in white populations, caused by a mutation in the gene that codes for the cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator protein (CFTR), which functions as a salt transporter. This mutation mainly affects the airways where excess salt absorption dehydrates the airway lining leading to impaired mucociliary clearance. Consequently, thick, sticky mucus accumulates making the airway prone to chronic infection and progressive inflammation; respiratory failure often ensues. Other complications include malnutrition, diabetes and subfertility.\nIncreased understanding of the condition has allowed pharmaceutical companies to design mutation-specific therapies targeting the underlying molecular defect. CFTR potentiators target mutation classes III and IV and aim to normalise airway surface liquid and mucociliary clearance, which in turn impacts on the chronic infection and inflammation. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of CFTR potentiators on clinically important outcomes in children and adults with CF.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and online clinical trial registries. Last search: 21 November 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing CFTR potentiators to placebo in people with CF. A separate review examines trials combining CFTR potentiators with other mutation-specific therapies.\nData collection and analysis\nThe authors independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias in included trials and used GRADE to assess evidence quality. Trial authors were contacted for additional data.\nMain results\nWe included five RCTs (447 participants with different mutations) lasting from 28 days to 48 weeks, all assessing the CFTR potentiator ivacaftor. The quality of the evidence was moderate to low, mainly due to risk of bias (incomplete outcome data and selective reporting) and imprecision of results, particularly where few individuals experienced adverse events. Trial design was generally well-documented. All trials were industry-sponsored and supported by other non-pharmaceutical funding bodies.\nF508del (class II) (140 participants)\nOne 16-week trial reported no deaths, or changes in quality of life (QoL) or lung function (either relative or absolute change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (moderate-quality evidence). Pulmonary exacerbations and cough were the most reported adverse events in ivacaftor and placebo groups, but there was no difference between groups (low-quality evidence); there was also no difference between groups in participants interrupting or discontinuing treatment (low-quality evidence). Number of days until the first exacerbation was not reported, but there was no difference between groups in how many participants developed pulmonary exacerbations. There was also no difference in weight. Sweat chloride concentration decreased, mean difference (MD) -2.90 mmol/L (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.60 to -0.20).\nG551D (class III) (238 participants)\nThe 28-day phase 2 trial (19 participants) and two 48-week phase 3 trials (adult trial (167 adults), paediatric trial (52 children)) reported no deaths. QoL scores (respiratory domain) were higher with ivacaftor in the adult trial at 24 weeks, MD 8.10 (95% CI 4.77 to 11.43) and 48 weeks, MD 8.60 (95% CI 5.27 to 11.93 (moderate-quality evidence). The adult trial reported a higher relative change in FEV1 with ivacaftor at 24 weeks, MD 16.90% (95% CI 13.60 to 20.20) and 48 weeks, MD 16.80% (95% CI 13.50 to 20.10); the paediatric trial reported this at 24 weeks, MD 17.4% (P < 0.0001)) (moderate-quality evidence). These trials demonstrated absolute improvements in FEV1 (% predicted) at 24 weeks, MD 10.80% (95% CI 8.91 to 12.69) and 48 weeks, MD 10.44% (95% CI 8.56 to 12.32). The phase 3 trials reported increased cough, odds ratio (OR) 0.57 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.00) and episodes of decreased pulmonary function, OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.82) in the placebo group; ivacaftor led to increased dizziness in adults, OR 10.55 (95% CI 1.32 to 84.47). There was no difference between groups in participants interrupting or discontinuing treatment (low-quality evidence). Fewer participants taking ivacaftor developed serious pulmonary exacerbations; adults taking ivacaftor developed fewer exacerbations (serious or not), OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.01). A higher proportion of participants were exacerbation-free at 24 weeks with ivacaftor (moderate-quality evidence). Ivacaftor led to a greater absolute change from baseline in FEV1 (% predicted) at 24 weeks, MD 10.80% (95% CI 8.91 to 12.69) and 48 weeks, MD 10.44% (95% CI 8.56 to 12.32); weight also increased at 24 weeks, MD 2.37 kg (95% CI 1.68 to 3.06) and 48 weeks, MD 2.75 kg (95% CI 1.74 to 3.75). Sweat chloride concentration decreased at 24 weeks, MD -48.98 mmol/L (95% CI -52.07 to -45.89) and 48 weeks, MD -49.03 mmol/L (95% CI -52.11 to -45.94).\nR117H (class IV) (69 participants)\nOne 24-week trial reported no deaths. QoL scores (respiratory domain) were higher with ivacaftor at 24 weeks, MD 8.40 (95% CI 2.17 to 14.63), but no relative changes in lung function were reported (moderate-quality evidence). Pulmonary exacerbations and cough were the most reported adverse events in both groups, but there was no difference between groups; there was no difference between groups in participants interrupting or discontinuing treatment (low-quality evidence). Number of days until the first exacerbation was not reported, but there was no difference between groups in how many participants developed pulmonary exacerbations. No changes in absolute change in FEV1 or weight were reported. Sweat chloride concentration decreased, MD -24.00 mmol/L (CI 95% -24.69 to -23.31).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence supporting the use of ivacaftor in people with the F508del mutation. Both G551D phase 3 trials demonstrated a clinically relevant impact of ivacaftor on outcomes at 24 and 48 weeks in adults and children (over six years of age) with CF. The R117H trial demonstrated an improvement in the respiratory QoL score, but no improvement in respiratory function.\nAs new mutation-specific therapies emerge, it is important that trials examine outcomes relevant to people with CF and their families and that adverse events are reported robustly and consistently. Post-market surveillance is essential and ongoing health economic evaluations are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In people with CF, airway surfaces do not have enough water because of an abnormal protein; this makes it difficult to clear thick and sticky mucus, which leads to lung infections. Ivacaftor works on the abnormal protein in people with some mutations to allow the airways retain more water and better clear mucus, so fewer lung infections develop.\nIvacaftor was aimed at people with class III and IV mutations, and has been studied in people with G551D (class III), R117H (class IV) and F508del (class II) mutations." } ]
query-laysum	5886	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCorneal abrasion is a common disorder frequently faced by ophthalmologists, emergency physicians, and primary care physicians. Ocular antibiotics are one of the management options for corneal abrasion. A comprehensive summary and synthesis of the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis in traumatic corneal abrasion is thus far unavailable, therefore we conducted this review to evaluate the current evidence regarding this important issue.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of topical antibiotic prophylaxis following corneal abrasion. Our objectives were 1) to investigate the incidence of infection with antibiotics versus placebo or alternative antibiotics in people with corneal abrasion; and 2) to investigate time to clinical cure, defined as complete healing (re-epithelialization) of the epithelium, with antibiotics versus placebo or alternative antibiotics in people with corneal abrasion.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, PubMed, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 25 April 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotic with another antibiotic or placebo in children and adults with corneal abrasion due to any cause.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for the prespecified outcomes using the GRADE classification.\nMain results\nOur search of the electronic databases yielded 8661 records. We screened 7690 titles and abstracts after removal of duplicates. We retrieved 32 full-text reports for further review. We included two studies that randomized a total of 527 eyes of 527 participants in the review. One study was conducted in Denmark, and one was conducted in India.\nThe two studies did not examine most of our prespecified primary and secondary outcomes. The first study was a parallel-group RCT comparing chloramphenicol ocular ointment with fusidic acid ocular gels (frequency was not clearly reported). This study enrolled 153 participants older than 5 years of age with corneal abrasion in Denmark with a one-day follow-up duration. No participants had secondary infection in the fusidic acid group, whereas three (4.1%) participants in the chloramphenicol group had a slight reaction (risk ratio [RR] 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 to 2.79; 144 participants; very low certainty evidence). Thirty-one (44.3%) participants in the fusidic acid arm and 34 (46.6%) participants in the chloramphenicol arm were cured (defined as the area of abrasion zero and no infection) at day 1 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.34; 144 participants; very low certainty evidence). Without providing specific data, the study reported that the degree of pain was not affected by the interventions received. The most common adverse events reported were itching and discomfort of the eye, which occurred in approximately one-third of participants in each group (low certainty evidence).\nA second multicenter, two-arm RCT conducted in India enrolled 374 participants older than 5 years of age with corneal abrasion who presented within 48 hours after injury. This study investigated the effect of a three-day course of either ocular ointment combinations of chloramphenicol-clotrimazole or chloramphenicol-placebo (all three times daily). At day 3, 169 (100%) participants in the chloramphenicol-clotrimazole arm and 203 (99%) out of 205 participants in the chloramphenicol-placebo arm were cured without any complication, defined as complete epithelialization of the cornea without evidence of infection (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.03; 374 participants; very low certainty evidence). Four participants assigned to the chloramphenicol-placebo arm experienced mild adverse events: two participants (1%) had mild chemosis and irritation, and two (1%) had small single sterile corneal infiltrates (low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the low to very low certainty of the available evidence, any beneficial effects of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing ocular infection or accelerating epithelial healing following a corneal abrasion remain unclear. Moreover, the current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. There is a need for a well-designed RCT assessing the efficacy and safety of ocular antibiotics in the treatment of corneal abrasion with a particular focus on high-risk populations and formulation of interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out whether antibiotics could prevent eye infections following corneal abrasion." } ]
query-laysum	5887	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUsing hypofractionation (fewer, larger doses of daily radiation) to treat localized prostate cancer may improve convenience and resource use. For hypofractionation to be feasible, it must be at least as effective for cancer-related outcomes and have comparable toxicity and quality of life outcomes as conventionally fractionated radiation therapy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy compared to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and trials registries from 1946 to 15 March 2019 with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors. Searches were not limited by language or publication status. We reran all searches within three months (15th March 2019) prior to publication.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled comparisons which included men with clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma where hypofractionated radiation therapy (external beam radiation therapy) to the prostate using hypofractionation (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy to the prostate delivered using standard fractionation (1.8 Gy to 2 Gy per fraction).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 for data analysis and meta-analysis. We used the inverse variance method and random-effects model for data synthesis of time-to-event data with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported. For dichotomous data, we used the Mantel-Haenzel method and random-effects model to present risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies with 8278 men in our analysis comparing hypofractionation with conventional fractionation to treat prostate cancer.\nPrimary outcomes\nHypofractionation may result in little or no difference in prostate cancer-specific survival [PC-SS] (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.39; studies = 8, participants = 7946; median follow-up 72 months; low-certainty evidence). For men in the intermediate-risk group undergoing conventional fractionation this corresponds to 976 per 1000 men alive after 6 years and 0 more (44 fewer to 18 more) alive per 1000 men undergoing hypofractionation.\nWe are uncertain about the effect of hypofractionation on late radiation therapy gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.78; studies = 4, participants = 3843; very low-certainty evidence).\nHypofractionation probably results in little or no difference to late radiation therapy genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; studies = 4, participants = 3843; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 262 per 1000 late GU radiation therapy toxicity events with conventional fractionation and 13 more (18 fewer to 47 more) per 1000 men when undergoing hypofractionation.\nSecondary outcomes\nHypofractionation results in little or no difference in overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; 10 studies, 8243 participants; high-certainty evidence). For men in the intermediate-risk group undergoing conventional fractionation this corresponds to 869 per 1000 men alive after 6 years and 17 fewer (54 fewer to 17 more) participants alive per 1000 men when undergoing hypofractionation.\nHypofractionation may result in little to no difference in metastasis-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 5 studies, 4985 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 981 men per 1000 men metastasis-free at 6 years when undergoing conventional fractionation and 5 more (58 fewer to 19 more) metastasis-free per 1000 when undergoing hypofractionation.\nHypofractionation likely results in a small, possibly unimportant reduction in biochemical recurrence-free survival based on Phoenix criteria (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; studies = 5, participants = 2889; median follow-up 90 months to 108 months; moderate-certainty evidence). In men of the intermediate-risk group, this corresponds to 804 biochemical-recurrence free men per 1000 participants at six years with conventional fractionation and 42 fewer (134 fewer to 37 more) recurrence-free men per 1000 participants with hypofractionation\nHypofractionation likely results in little to no difference to acute GU radiation therapy toxicity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4174 participants at 12 to 18 weeks' follow-up; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 360 episodes of toxicity per 1000 participants with conventional fractionation and 11 more (18 fewer to 40 more) per 1000 when undergoing hypofractionation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThese findings suggest that moderate hypofractionation (up to a fraction size of 3.4 Gy) results in similar oncologic outcomes in terms of disease-specific, metastasis-free and overall survival. There appears to be little to no increase in both acute and late toxicity.\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": "Using fewer fractions, with a larger dose given at each visit is possibly better for treating prostate cancer with radiation. Radiation therapy for prostate cancer can cause bladder and bowel side effects, and affect sexual function. If using larger doses for each treatment, with fewer treatments overall (called hypofractionation), works as well for cancer control, and the side effects and effects on certainty of life are about the same, then hypofractionation may benefit men with prostate cancer contained within the prostate (localized) who are treated with radiation therapy. If cancer control is as good, and the side effects about the same, then using fewer (but larger dose) radiation treatments may be more convenient for men with prostate cancer, use fewer resources and save money." } ]
query-laysum	5889	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInsecticide-based interventions, such as long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), remain the backbone of malaria vector control. These interventions target mosquitoes that prefer to feed and rest indoors, but have limited capacity to prevent transmission that occurs outdoors or outside regular sleeping hours. In low-endemicity areas, malaria elimination will require that these control gaps are addressed, and complementary tools are found. The use of topical repellents may be particularly useful for populations who may not benefit from programmatic malaria control measures, such as refugees, the military, or forest goers. This Cochrane Review aims to measure the effectiveness of topical repellents to prevent malaria infection among high- and non-high-risk populations living in malaria-endemic regions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of topical repellents alone or in combination with other background interventions (long-lasting insecticide-treated nets, or indoor residual spraying, or both) for reducing the incidence of malaria in high- and non-high-risk populations living in endemic areas.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 11 January 2023: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register; CENTRAL (in the Cochrane Library); MEDLINE; Embase; CAB Abstracts; and LILACS. We also searched trial registration platforms and conference proceedings; and contacted organizations and companies for ongoing and unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) of topical repellents proven to repel mosquitoes. We also included non-randomized studies that complied with pre-specified inclusion criteria: controlled before-after studies (CBA), controlled interrupted time series (ITS), and controlled cross-over trials.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, and extracted the data. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. A fifth review author resolved any disagreements. We analysed data by conducting a meta-analysis, stratified by whether studies included populations considered to be at high-risk of developing malaria infection (for example, refugees, forest goers, or deployed military troops). We combined results from cRCTs with RCTs by adjusting for clustering and presented results using forest plots. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of the evidence. We only included data on Plasmodium falciparum infections in the meta-analysis.\nMain results\nThirteen articles relating to eight trials met the inclusion criteria and were qualitatively described. We included six trials in the meta-analysis (five cRCTs and one RCT).\nEffect on malaria incidence\nTopical repellents may slightly reduce P falciparum infection and clinical incidence when both outcomes are considered together (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.98; 3 cRCTs and 1 RCT, 61,651 participants; low-certainty evidence); but not when these two outcomes were considered independently. Two cRCTs and one RCT (12,813 participants) evaluated the effect of topical repellents on infection incidence (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.02; low-certainty evidence). One cRCT (48,838 participants) evaluated their effect on clinical case incidence (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36; low-certainty evidence). Three studies (2 cRCTs and 1 RCT) included participants belonging to groups considered at high-risk of being infected, while only one cRCT did not include participants at high risk.\nAdverse events\nTopical repellents are considered safe. The prevalence of adverse events among participants who used topical repellents was very low (0.6%, 283/47,515) and limited to mild skin reactions.\nEffect on malaria prevalence\nTopical repellents may slightly reduce P falciparum prevalence (odds ratio (OR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; 3 cRCTs and 1 RCT; 55,366 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two of these studies (1 cRCT and 1 RCT) were carried out in refugee camps, and included exclusively high-risk populations that were not receiving any other background vector control intervention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to conclude that topical repellents can prevent malaria in settings where other vector control interventions are in place. We found the certainty of evidence for all outcomes to be low, primarily due to the risk of bias. A protective effect was suggested among high-risk populations, specially refugees, who might not have access to other standard vector control measures.\nMore adequately powered clinical trials carried out in refugee camps could provide further information on the potential benefit of topical repellents in this setting. Individually randomized studies are also likely necessary to understand whether topical repellents have an effect on personal protection, and the degree to which diversion to non-protected participants affects overall transmission dynamics.\nDespite this, the potential additional benefits of topical repellents are most likely limited in contexts where other interventions are available.\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 a total of eight studies, which included over 60,000 people. The studies took place in areas with low malaria transmission, mostly in Southeast Asia and South America.\nThe topical repellents evaluated included lotions, soaps, and cosmetics. We found evidence suggesting that topical repellents may slightly reduce the incidence and prevalence of malaria cases caused by P falciparum in settings where other tools to prevent mosquito bites are not available. Despite this, our findings suggest that repellents probably make little or no difference in places where these tools are already widely used. Topical repellents are considered safe, and the prevalence of adverse side effects was very low." } ]
query-laysum	5890	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) are common medical conditions that frequently co-exist. GORD has been postulated as a trigger for asthma; however, evidence remains conflicting. Proposed mechanisms by which GORD causes asthma include direct airway irritation from micro-aspiration and vagally mediated oesophagobronchial reflux. Furthermore, asthma might precipitate GORD. Thus a temporal association between the two does not establish that GORD triggers asthma.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of GORD treatment in adults and children with asthma, in terms of its benefits for asthma.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles, and online clinical trial databases were searched. The most recent search was conducted on 23 June 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing treatment of GORD in adults and children with a diagnosis of both asthma and GORD versus no treatment or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nA combination of two independent review authors extracted study data and assessed trial quality. The primary outcome of interest for this review was acute asthma exacerbation as reported by trialists.\nMain results\nThe systematic search yielded a total of 3354 citations; 23 studies (n = 2872 participants) were suitable for inclusion. Included studies reported data from participants in 25 different countries across Europe, North and South America, Asia, Australia, and the Middle East. Participants included in this review had moderate to severe asthma and a diagnosis of GORD and were predominantly adults presenting to a clinic for treatment. Only two studies assessed effects of intervention on children, and two assessed the impact of surgical intervention. The remainder were concerned with medical intervention using a variety of dosing protocols.\nThere was an uncertain reduction in the number of participants experiencing one or more moderate/severe asthma exacerbations with medical treatment for GORD (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.63; 1168 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported data related to the other primary outcomes for this review: hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and unscheduled doctor visits.\nMedical treatment for GORD probably improved forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) by a small amount (mean difference (MD) 0.10 L, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15; 1333 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) as well as use of rescue medications (MD -0.71 puffs per day, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.22; 239 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the benefit of GORD treatment for morning peak expiratory flow rate was uncertain (MD 6.02 L/min, 95% CI 0.56 to 11.47; 1262 participants, 5 studies). It is important to note that these mean improvements did not reach clinical importance. The benefit of GORD treatment for outcomes synthesised narratively including benefits of treatment for asthma symptoms, quality of life, and treatment preference was likewise uncertain. Data related to adverse events with intervention were generally underreported by the included studies, and those that were available indicated similar rates regardless of allocation to treatment or placebo.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEffects of GORD treatment on the primary outcomes of number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations and hospital utilisation remain uncertain. Medical treatment for GORD in people with asthma may provide small benefit for a number of secondary outcomes related to asthma management. This review determined with moderate certainty that with treatment, lung function measures improved slightly, and use of rescue medications for asthma control was reduced. Further, evidence is insufficient to assess results in children, or to compare surgery versus medical therapy.\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 23 studies for inclusion in this review. These studies focused mostly on adults, with a total of 2872 participants involved. Only two studies assessed the effects of treating GORD in children, and two investigated the benefits of using surgery for GORD to improve asthma control. According to evidence presented in this review, using medication to treat GORD in people with asthma probably reduces the amount of rescue medication needed to control asthma symptoms and also probably improves lung function to a small degree. It is important to note that these benefits may be too small to make an impact on the daily life of someone with asthma.\nBased on available evidence, this review is not able to show if there was clear benefit of treatment for asthma symptoms for quality of life, or how many flare-ups are experienced by a person with asthma. Because researchers used many different approaches to treating people who participated in their studies, it is also difficult to suggest whether a specific type of medication regimen would be best. Not many of the included studies mentioned negative effects of being involved in the research. Those that did reported that any negative effects during the research period happened equally in both treatment and placebo/no treatment groups.\nWe did not find any data in the included studies related to hospital admissions nor to emergency room or unscheduled doctor visits." } ]
query-laysum	5891	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany workers suffer from work-related stress and are at increased risk of work-related cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, or mental disorders. In the European Union the prevalence of work-related stress was estimated at about 22%. There is consensus that stress, absenteeism, and well-being of employees can be influenced by leadership behaviour. Existing reviews predominantly included cross-sectional and non-experimental studies, which have limited informative value in deducing causal relationships between leadership interventions and health outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of four types of human resource management (HRM) training for supervisors on employees' psychomental stress, absenteeism, and well-being. We included training aimed at improving supervisor-employee interaction, either off-the-job or on-the-job training, and training aimed at improving supervisors' capability of designing the work environment, either off-the-job or on-the-job training.\nSearch methods\nIn May 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and most relevant trials registers (ICTRP, TroPHI, ClinicalTrials.gov). We did not impose any language restrictions on the searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCT), and controlled before-after studies (CBA) with at least two intervention and control sites, which examined the effects of supervisor training on psychomental stress, absenteeism, and well-being of employees within natural settings of organisations by means of validated measures.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two authors independently screened abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We analysed study data from intervention and control groups with respect to different comparisons, outcomes, follow-up time, study designs, and intervention types. We pooled study results by use of standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals when possible. We assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 25 studies of which 4 are awaiting assessment. The 21 studies that could be analysed were 1 RCT, 14 cRCTs and 6 CBAs with a total of at least 3479 employees in intervention and control groups. We judged 12 studies to have an unclear risk of bias and the remaining nine studies to have a high risk of bias. Sixteen studies focused on improving supervisor-employee interaction, whereas five studies aimed at improving the design of working environments by means of supervisor training.\nTraining versus no intervention\nWe found very low-quality evidence that supervisor training does not reduce employees' stress levels (6 studies) or absenteeism (1 study) when compared to no intervention, regardless of intervention type or follow-up. We found inconsistent, very low-quality evidence that supervisor training aimed at employee interaction may (2 studies) or may not (7 studies) improve employees' well-being when compared to no intervention. Effects from two studies were not estimable due to missing data.\nTraining versus placebo\nWe found moderate-quality evidence (2 studies) that supervisor training off the job aimed at employee interaction does not reduce employees' stress levels more than a placebo training at mid-term follow-up. We found low-quality evidence in one study that supervisor training on the job aimed at employee interaction does not reduce employees' absenteeism more than placebo training at long-term follow-up. Effects from one study were not estimable due to insufficient data.\nTraining versus other training\nOne study compared the effects of supervisor training off the job aimed at employee interaction on employees' stress levels to training off the job aimed at working conditions at long-term follow-up but due to insufficient data, effects were not estimable.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on a small and heterogeneous sample of controlled intervention studies and in contrast to prevailing consensus that supervisor behaviour influences employees' health and well-being, we found inconsistent evidence that supervisor training may or may not improve employees' well-being when compared to no intervention. For all other types of interventions and outcomes, there was no evidence of a considerable effect. However, due to the very low- to moderate-quality of the evidence base, clear conclusions are currently unwarranted. Well-designed studies are needed to clarify effects of supervisor training on employees' stress, absenteeism, and well-being.\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 is no considerable effect of supervisor training on employees' stress (6 studies) or absenteeism (1 study) when compared to no training. There is inconsistent evidence that supervisor training may (2 studies) or may not (7 studies) improve employees' well-being when compared to no training. Data were missing from two studies, so we could not calculate the effects of training on employee well-being.\nThere is no effect of supervisor training on employees' stress (2 studies) or absenteeism (1 study) when compared to a placebo training. Data were missing from one study, so we could not calculate the effects of training on employee well-being.\nOne study that evaluated supervisor training compared to another type of training to reduce employees' stress did not provide enough data to calculate its effects." } ]
query-laysum	5892	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNeonatal hyperbilirubinaemia is a common problem which carries a risk of neurotoxicity. Certain infants who have hyperbilirubinaemia develop bilirubin encephalopathy and kernicterus which may lead to long-term disability. Phototherapy is currently the mainstay of treatment for neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia. Among the adjunctive measures to compliment the effects of phototherapy, fluid supplementation has been proposed to reduce serum bilirubin levels. The mechanism of action proposed includes direct dilutional effects of intravenous (IV) fluids, or enhancement of peristalsis to reduce enterohepatic circulation by oral fluid supplementation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the risks and benefits of fluid supplementation compared to standard fluid management in term and preterm newborn infants with unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia who require phototherapy.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 7 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 7 June 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 7 June 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared fluid supplementation against no fluid supplementation, or one form of fluid supplementation against another.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group using the Covidence platform. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), risk difference (RD), and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nOut of 1449 articles screened, seven studies were included. Three articles were awaiting classification, among them, two completed trials identified from the trial registry appeared to be unpublished so far.\nThere were two major comparisons: IV fluid supplementation versus no fluid supplementation (six studies) and IV fluid supplementation versus oral fluid supplementation (one study). A total of 494 term, healthy newborn infants with unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia were evaluated. All studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of care personnel, five studies had unclear risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors, and most studies had unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment. There was low- to moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes.\nIn the comparison between IV fluid supplementation and no supplementation, no infant in either group developed bilirubin encephalopathy in the one study that reported this outcome. Serum bilirubin was lower at four hours postintervention for infants who received IV fluid supplementation (MD -34.00 μmol/L (-1.99 mg/dL), 95% CI -52.29 (3.06) to -15.71 (0.92); participants = 67, study = 1) (low quality of evidence, downgraded one level for indirectness and one level for suspected publication bias). Beyond eight hours postintervention, serum bilirubin was similar between the two groups. Duration of phototherapy was significantly shorter for fluid-supplemented infants, but the estimate was affected by heterogeneity which was not clearly explained (MD -10.70 hours, 95% CI -15.55 to -5.85; participants = 218; studies = 3; I² = 67%). Fluid-supplemented infants were less likely to require exchange transfusion (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.71; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; participants = 462; studies = 6; I² = 72%) (low quality of evidence, downgraded one level due to inconsistency, and another level due to suspected publication bias), and the estimate was similarly affected by unexplained heterogeneity. The frequencies of breastfeeding were similar between the fluid-supplemented and non-supplemented infants in days one to three based on one study (estimate on day three: MD 0.90 feeds, 95% CI -0.40 to 2.20; participants = 60) (moderate quality of evidence, downgraded one level for imprecision).\nOne study contributed to all outcome data in the comparison of IV versus oral fluid supplementation. In this comparison, no infant in either group developed abnormal neurological signs. Serum bilirubin, as well as the rate of change of serum bilirubin, were similar between the two groups at four hours after phototherapy (serum bilirubin: MD 11.00 μmol/L (0.64 mg/dL), 95% CI -21.58 (-1.26) to 43.58 (2.55); rate of change of serum bilirubin: MD 0.80 μmol/L/hour (0.05 mg/dL/hour), 95% CI -2.55 (-0.15) to 4.15 (0.24); participants = 54 in both outcomes) (moderate quality of evidence for both outcomes, downgraded one level for indirectness). The number of infants who required exchange transfusion was similar between the two groups (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.27; RD 0.11, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.34; participants = 54). No infant in either group developed adverse effects including vomiting or abdominal distension.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence that IV fluid supplementation affects important clinical outcomes such as bilirubin encephalopathy, kernicterus, or cerebral palsy in healthy, term newborn infants with unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia requiring phototherapy. In this review, no infant developed these bilirubin-associated clinical complications. Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that there are differences in total serum bilirubin levels between fluid-supplemented and control groups at some time points but not at others, the clinical significance of which is uncertain. There is no evidence of a difference between the effectiveness of IV and oral fluid supplementations in reducing serum bilirubin. Similarly, no infant developed adverse events or complications from fluid supplementation such as vomiting or abdominal distension. This suggests a need for future research to focus on different population groups with possibly higher baseline risks of bilirubin-related neurological complications, such as preterm or low birthweight infants, infants with haemolytic hyperbilirubinaemia, as well as infants with dehydration for comparison of different fluid supplementation regimen.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "jaundice in newborn infants is common, because the infants' livers are unable to fully process bilirubin, the breakdown product of red blood cells. Some infants develop serious jaundice, and though uncommon, a small number suffer major complications as excessive bilirubin crosses from the blood to the brain. The complications include acute (short-term or sudden onset) brain injuries and long-term disability in the form of cerebral palsy (which affects movement and co-ordination). The extent of jaundice is commonly assessed by looking at the infants' skin and eyes, and confirmed by checking the blood bilirubin level. Phototherapy (light treatment) is the main treatment, and if bilirubin remains very high after phototherapy, exchange transfusion (transfusing with new blood while removing blood containing high levels of bilirubin) is recommended. Several other treatments have also been evaluated. Among them, giving infants additional intravenous (into a vein) fluid to dilute the blood and increasing feeding to enhance bilirubin excretion in bowel movements have been practised. We examined whether fluid supplementation confers any additional benefit on top of phototherapy for infants with serious jaundice." } ]
query-laysum	5893	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear. This is an update of a review last published in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps delivery, or both.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. We assessed methodological quality of the two included studies using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwo studies, involving 3813 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, were included. One study involving 393 women compared the antibiotic intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping compared with no treatment. The other study involving 3420 women compared a single dose of intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid with placebo using 20 mL of intravenous sterile 0.9% saline.\nThe evidence suggests that prophylactic antibiotics reduce superficial perineal wound infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence), deep perineal wound infection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence) and probably reduce wound breakdown (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; women = 2593; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). We are unclear about the effect on organ or space perineal wound infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.05; women = 3420; 1 study) and endometritis (average RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.64; 15/1907 versus 30/1906; women = 3813; 2 studies) based on low-certainty evidence with wide CIs that include no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics probably lower serious infectious complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). They also have an important effect on reduction of confirmed or suspected maternal infection. The two included studies did not report on fever or urinary tract infection.\nIt is unclear, based on low-certainty evidence, whether prophylactic antibiotics have any impact on maternal adverse reactions (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.05; women = 2593; 1 study) and maternal length of stay (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41; women = 393; 1 study) as the CIs were wide and included no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain and probably reduce costs. Prophylactic antibiotics did not have an important effect on dyspareunia (difficult or painful sexual intercourse) or breastfeeding at six weeks. Antibiotic prophylaxis may slightly improve maternal hospital re-admission and maternal health-related quality of life. Neonatal adverse reactions were not reported in any included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nProphylactic intravenous antibiotics are effective in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in terms of superficial and deep perineal wound infection or serious infectious complications in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries without clinical indications for antibiotic administration after delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain, probably reduce the costs, and may slightly reduce the maternal hospital re-admission and health-related quality of life. However, the effect on reduction of endometritis, organ or space perineal wound infection, maternal adverse reactions and maternal length of stay is unclear due to low-certainty evidence.\nAs the evidence was mainly derived from a single multi-centre study conducted in a high-income setting, future well-designed randomised trials in other settings, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, are required to confirm the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.\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": "Women who undergo vacuum- or forceps-assisted vaginal births may be more likely to have an infection after the birth when compared to women who experience a normal spontaneous vaginal birth. They are also more likely to be re-admitted to hospital. Women are at increased risk of infection because of the need for routine bladder catheterisation, multiple vaginal examinations, insertion of instruments into the vagina, and increased risk of vaginal deep cuts or tears during the operative birth. Infection appears as fever, infection of the uterus and surrounding tissues, an infected episiotomy or vaginal tear, or urinary tract infection. These affect the physical state of the mother and can impact on her well-being. The infection may also enter the bloodstream and affect the whole body." } ]
query-laysum	5894	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute bronchiolitis is one of the most frequent causes of emergency department visits and hospitalisation in children up to three years of age. There is no specific treatment for bronchiolitis except for supportive treatment, which includes ensuring adequate hydration and oxygen supplementation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) aims to widen the lungs' peripheral airways, enabling deflation of overdistended lungs in bronchiolitis. Increased airway pressure also prevents the collapse of poorly supported peripheral small airways during expiration. Observational studies report that CPAP is beneficial for children with acute bronchiolitis. This is an update of a review first published in 2015 and updated in 2019.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of CPAP compared to no CPAP or sham CPAP in infants and children up to three years of age with acute bronchiolitis.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted searches of CENTRAL (2021, Issue 7), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2021), Embase (1974 to August 2021), CINAHL (1981 to August 2021), and LILACS (1982 to August 2021) in August 2021. We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for completed and ongoing trials on 26 October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cross-over RCTs, and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data using a structured pro forma, analysed data, and performed meta-analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies. We created a summary of the findings table employing GRADEpro GDT software.\nMain results\nWe included three studies with a total of 122 children (62/60 in intervention/control arms) aged up to 12 months investigating nasal CPAP compared with supportive (or 'standard') therapy. We included one new trial (72 children) in the 2019 update that contributed data to the assessment of respiratory rate and the need for mechanical ventilation for this update. We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in the current update. The included studies were single-centre trials conducted in France, the UK, and India. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs, and one study was a cross-over RCT. The evidence provided by the included studies was of low certainty; we made an assessment of high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting, and confidence intervals were wide.\nThe effect of CPAP on the need for mechanical ventilation in children with acute bronchiolitis was uncertain due to risk of bias and imprecision around the effect estimate (risk difference −0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.09 to 0.08; 3 RCTs, 122 children; low certainty evidence). None of the trials measured time to recovery. Limited, low certainty evidence indicated that CPAP decreased respiratory rate (decreased respiratory rate is better) (mean difference (MD) −3.81, 95% CI −5.78 to −1.84; 2 RCTs, 91 children; low certainty evidence). Only one trial measured change in arterial oxygen saturation (increased oxygen saturation is better), and the results were imprecise (MD −1.70%, 95% CI −3.76 to 0.36; 1 RCT, 19 children; low certainty evidence). The effect of CPAP on change in arterial partial carbon dioxide pressure (pCO₂) (decrease in pCO₂ is better) was imprecise (MD −2.62 mmHg, 95% CI −5.29 to 0.05; 2 RCTs, 50 children; low certainty evidence). Duration of hospital stay was similar in both the CPAP and supportive care groups (MD 0.07 days, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.50; 2 RCTs, 50 children; low certainty evidence). Two studies did not report pneumothorax, but pneumothorax did not occur in one study. No studies reported occurrences of deaths. Several outcomes (change in partial oxygen pressure, hospital admission rate (from the emergency department to hospital), duration of emergency department stay, and need for intensive care unit admission) were not reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe use of CPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation in children with bronchiolitis, although the evidence was of low certainty. Limited, low certainty evidence suggests that breathing improved (a decreased respiratory rate) in children with bronchiolitis who received CPAP; this finding is unchanged from the 2015 review and 2019 update. Due to the limited available evidence, the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis is uncertain for our other outcomes. Larger, adequately powered trials are needed to evaluate the effect of CPAP for children with acute bronchiolitis.\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": "We found limited, low certainty evidence related to CPAP for children with bronchiolitis. The certainty of the evidence was reduced due to high risk of bias, losses to follow-up, selective reporting, and the wide range of values reported by the included studies." } ]
query-laysum	5895	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPlatelet-rich therapies are being used increasingly in the treatment of musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries such as ligament, muscle and tendon tears and tendinopathies. These therapies can be used as the principal treatment or as an augmentation procedure (application after surgical repair or reconstruction). Platelet-rich therapies are produced by centrifuging a quantity of the patient’s own blood and extracting the active, platelet-rich, fraction. The platelet-rich fraction is applied to the injured tissue; for example, by injection. Platelets have the ability to produce several growth factors, so these therapies should enhance tissue healing. There is a need to assess whether this translates into clinical benefit.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of platelet-rich therapies for treating musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (25 March 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013 Issue 2), MEDLINE (1946 to March 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 Week 12) and LILACS (1982 to March 2012). We also searched trial registers (to Week 2 2013) and conference abstracts (2005 to March 2012). No language or publication restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared platelet-rich therapy with either placebo, autologous whole blood, dry needling or no platelet-rich therapy for people with acute or chronic musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Primary outcomes were functional status, pain and adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed each study's risk of bias. Disagreement was resolved by discussion or by arbitration by a third author. We contacted trial authors for clarification of methods or missing data. Treatment effects were assessed using risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data, together with 95% confidence intervals. Where appropriate, data were pooled using the fixed-effect model for RR and MD, and the random-effects model for SMD. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe included data from 19 small single centre trials (17 randomised and two quasi-randomised; 1088 participants) that compared platelet-rich therapy with placebo, autologous whole blood, dry needling or no platelet-rich therapy. These trials covered eight clinical conditions: rotator cuff tears (arthroscopic repair) (six trials); shoulder impingement syndrome surgery (one trial); elbow epicondylitis (three trials); anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (four trials), ACL reconstruction (donor graft site application) (two trials), patellar tendinopathy (one trial), Achilles tendinopathy (one trial) and acute Achilles rupture surgical repair (one trial). We also grouped trials into 'tendinopathies' where platelet-rich therapy (PRT) injections were the main treatment (five trials), and surgical augmentation procedures where PRT was applied during surgery (14 trials). Trial participants were mainly male, except in trials including rotator cuff tears, and elbow and Achilles tendinopathies.\nThree trials were judged as being at low risk of bias; the other 16 were at high or unclear risk of bias relating to selection, detection, attrition or selective reporting, or combinations of these. The methods of preparing platelet-rich plasma (PRP) varied and lacked standardisation and quantification of the PRP applied to the patient.\nWe were able to pool data for our primary outcomes (function, pain, adverse events) for a maximum of 11 trials and 45% of participants. The evidence for all primary outcomes was judged as being of very low quality.\nData assessing function in the short term (up to three months) were pooled from four trials that assessed PRT in three clinical conditions and used four different measures. These showed no significant difference between PRT and control (SMD 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.19 to 0.71; P value 0.26; I² = 51%; 162 participants; positive values favour PRT). Medium-term function data (at six months) were pooled from five trials that assessed PRT in five clinical conditions and used five different measures. These also showed no difference between groups (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.39; P value 0.72; I² = 50%; 151 participants). Long-term function data (at one year) were pooled from 10 trials that assessed PRT in five clinical conditions and used six different measures. These also showed no difference between groups (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.57; P value 0.12; I² = 66%; 484 participants). Although the 95% confidence intervals indicate the possibility of a poorer outcome in the PRT group up to a moderate difference in favour of PRT at short- and long-term follow-up, these do not translate into clinically relevant differences.\nData pooled from four trials that assessed PRT in three clinical conditions showed a small reduction in short-term pain in favour of PRT on a 10-point scale (MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.41 to -0.48; I² = 0%; 175 participants). The clinical significance of this result is marginal.\nFour trials reported adverse events; another seven trials reported an absence of adverse events. There was no difference between treatment groups in the numbers of participants with adverse effects (7/241 versus 5/245; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.59; I² = 0%; 486 participants).\nIn terms of individual conditions, we pooled heterogeneous data for long-term function from six trials of PRT application during rotator cuff tear surgery. This showed no statistically or clinically significant differences between the two groups (324 participants).\nThe available evidence is insufficient to indicate whether the effects of PRT will differ importantly in individual clinical conditions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, and for the individual clinical conditions, there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of PRT for treating musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Researchers contemplating RCTs should consider the coverage of currently ongoing trials when assessing the need for future RCTs on specific conditions. There is need for standardisation of PRP preparation methods.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What treatments are available?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Several treatment options are available. These include conservative methods, such as physical therapy, and surgery, for example to repair torn tendons. Another, increasingly popular, therapy is platelet-rich therapy." } ]
query-laysum	5896	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLaparoscopic surgery has led to great clinical improvements in many fields of surgery; however, it requires the use of trocars, which may lead to complications as well as postoperative pain. The complications include intra-abdominal vascular and visceral injury, trocar site bleeding, herniation and infection. Many of these are extremely rare, such as vascular and visceral injury, but may be life-threatening; therefore, it is important to determine how these types of complications may be prevented. It is hypothesised that trocar-related complications and pain may be attributable to certain types of trocars. This systematic review was designed to improve patient safety by determining which, if any, specific trocar types are less likely to result in complications and postoperative pain.\nObjectives\nTo analyse the rates of trocar-related complications and postoperative pain for different trocar types used in people undergoing laparoscopy, regardless of the condition.\nSearch methods\nTwo experienced librarians conducted a comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CDSR and DARE (up to 26 May 2015). We checked trial registers and reference lists from trial and review articles, and approached content experts.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs that compared rates of trocar-related complications and postoperative pain for different trocar types used in people undergoing laparoscopy. The primary outcomes were major trocar-related complications, such as mortality, conversion due to any trocar-related adverse event, visceral injury, vascular injury and other injuries that required intensive care unit (ICU) management or a subsequent surgical, endoscopic or radiological intervention. Secondary outcomes were minor trocar-related complications and postoperative pain. We excluded trials that studied non-conventional laparoscopic incisions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed sensitivity analyses and investigation of heterogeneity, where possible.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs (654 participants). One RCT studied four different trocar types, while the remaining six RCTs studied two different types. The following trocar types were examined: radially expanding versus cutting (six studies; 604 participants), conical blunt-tipped versus cutting (two studies; 72 participants), radially expanding versus conical blunt-tipped (one study; 28 participants) and single-bladed versus pyramidal-bladed (one study; 28 participants). The evidence was very low quality: limitations were insufficient power, very serious imprecision and incomplete outcome data.\nPrimary outcomes\nFour of the included studies reported on visceral and vascular injury (571 participants), which are two of our primary outcomes. These RCTs examined 473 participants where radially expanding versus cutting trocars were used. We found no evidence of a difference in the incidence of visceral (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 15.32) and vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.0 to 7.16), both very low quality evidence. However, the incidence of these types of injuries were extremely low (i.e. two cases of visceral and one case of vascular injury for all of the included studies). There were no cases of either visceral or vascular injury for any of the other trocar type comparisons. No studies reported on any other primary outcomes, such as mortality, conversion to laparotomy, intensive care admission or any re-intervention.\nSecondary outcomes\nFor trocar site bleeding, the use of radially expanding trocars was associated with a lower risk of trocar site bleeding compared to cutting trocars (Peto OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54, five studies, 553 participants, very low quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk of trocar site bleeding with the use of cutting trocars is assumed to be 11.5%, the risk with the use of radially expanding trocars would be 3.5%. There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding other trocar types, their related complications and postoperative pain, as no studies reported data suitable for analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nData were lacking on the incidence of major trocar-related complications, such as visceral or vascular injury, when comparing different trocar types with one another. However, caution is urged when interpreting these results because the incidence of serious complications following the use of a trocar was extremely low. There was very low quality evidence for minor trocar-related complications suggesting that the use of radially expanding trocars compared to cutting trocars leads to reduced incidence of trocar site bleeding. These secondary outcomes are viewed to be of less clinical importance.\nLarge, well-conducted observational studies are necessary to answer the questions addressed in this review because serious complications, such as visceral or vascular injury, are extremely rare. However, for other outcomes, such as trocar site herniation, bleeding or infection, large observational studies may be needed as well. In order to answer these questions, it is advisable to establish an international network for recording these types of complications following laparoscopic surgery.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In laparoscopic surgery, trocars are needed to seal the skin openings, while permitting entry and removal of the surgical instruments. The introduction of trocars through the skin into the abdominal cavity is usually safe, yet, in a small minority of people, life-threatening complications can occur. The two most serious complications are puncture into a large blood vessel (occurs 0.9 times per 1000 operations) and puncture into abdominal organs (e.g. the intestine, stomach or liver) (occurs 1.8 times per 1000 operations). Less serious but more frequent complications include bleeding or infection of the skin at the trocar insertion site. Also, the degree of pain following laparoscopy could depend on the type of trocar used. It is unclear whether specific trocar types are less likely to be associated with complications and postoperative pain." } ]
query-laysum	5897	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is recognised as a major public health problem that has a substantial impact on individuals and on society. People with depression may consider using complementary therapies such as acupuncture, and an increasing body of research has been undertaken to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture for treatment of individuals with depression. This is the second update of this review.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effectiveness and adverse effects of acupuncture for treatment of individuals with depression.\nTo determine:\n• Whether acupuncture is more effective than treatment as usual/no treatment/wait list control for treating and improving quality of life for individuals with depression.\n• Whether acupuncture is more effective than control acupuncture for treating and improving quality of life for individuals with depression.\n• Whether acupuncture is more effective than pharmacological therapies for treating and improving quality of life for individuals with depression.\n• Whether acupuncture plus pharmacological therapy is more effective than pharmacological therapy alone for treating and improving quality of life for individuals with depression.\n• Whether acupuncture is more effective than psychological therapies for treating and improving quality of life for individuals with depression.\n• Adverse effects of acupuncture compared with treatment as usual/no treatment/wait list control, control acupuncture, pharmacological therapies, and psychological therapies for treatment of individuals with depression.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to June 2016: Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR), Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), DBPIA (Korean article database website), Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Research Information Service System (RISS), Korea Med, Korean Medical Database (KM base), and Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS), as well as several Korean medical journals.\nSelection criteria\nReview criteria called for inclusion of all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing acupuncture versus control acupuncture, no treatment, medication, other structured psychotherapies (cognitive-behavioural therapy, psychotherapy, or counselling), or standard care. Modes of treatment included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, and laser acupuncture. Participants included adult men and women with depression diagnosed by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC), International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), or Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders Third Edition Revised (CCMD-3-R). If necessary, we used trial authors' definitions of depressive disorder.\nData collection and analysis\nWe performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Primary outcomes were reduction in the severity of depression, measured by self-rating scales or by clinician-rated scales, and improvement in depression, defined as remission versus no remission. We assessed evidence quality using the GRADE method.\nMain results\nThis review is an update of previous versions and includes 64 studies (7104 participants). Most studies were at high risk of performance bias, at high or unclear risk of detection bias, and at low or unclear risk of selection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias.\nAcupuncture versus no treatment/wait list/treatment as usual\nWe found low-quality evidence suggesting that acupuncture (manual and electro-) may moderately reduce the severity of depression by end of treatment (SMD -0.66, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.25, five trials, 488 participants). It is unclear whether data show differences between groups in the risk of adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.24, one trial, 302 participants; low-quality evidence).\nAcupuncture versus control acupuncture (invasive, non-invasive sham controls)\nAcupuncture may be associated with a small reduction in the severity of depression of 1.69 points on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) by end of treatment (95% CI -3.33 to -0.05, 14 trials, 841 participants; low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether data show differences between groups in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.86, five trials, 300 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nAcupuncture versus medication\nWe found very low-quality evidence suggesting that acupuncture may confer small benefit in reducing the severity of depression by end of treatment (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.05, 31 trials, 3127 participants). Studies show substantial variation resulting from use of different classes of medications and different modes of acupuncture stimulation. Very low-quality evidence suggests lower ratings of adverse events following acupuncture compared with medication alone, as measured by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (mean difference (MD) -4.32, 95% CI -7.41 to -1.23, three trials, 481 participants).\nAcupuncture plus medication versus medication alone\nWe found very low-quality evidence suggesting that acupuncture is highly beneficial in reducing the severity of depression by end of treatment (SMD -1.15, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.66, 11 trials, 775 participants). Studies show substantial variation resulting from use of different modes of acupuncture stimulation. It is unclear whether differences in adverse events are associated with different modes of acupuncture (SMD -1.32, 95% CI -2.86 to 0.23, three trials, 200 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nAcupuncture versus psychological therapy\nIt is unclear whether data show differences between acupuncture and psychological therapy in the severity of depression by end of treatment (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -1.33 to 0.33, two trials, 497 participants; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence suggests no differences between groups in rates of adverse events (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.33, one trial, 452 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe reduction in severity of depression was less when acupuncture was compared with control acupuncture than when acupuncture was compared with no treatment control, although in both cases, results were rated as providing low-quality evidence. The reduction in severity of depression with acupuncture given alone or in conjunction with medication versus medication alone is uncertain owing to the very low quality of evidence. The effect of acupuncture compared with psychological therapy is unclear. The risk of adverse events with acupuncture is also unclear, as most trials did not report adverse events adequately. Few studies included follow-up periods or assessed important outcomes such as quality of life. High-quality randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to examine the clinical efficacy and acceptability of acupuncture, as well as its effectiveness, compared with acupuncture controls, medication, or psychological therapies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who will be interested in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Adolescents and adults; healthcare practitioners, including general practitioners working with or involved in the treatment of individuals with depression; and providers and commissioners of healthcare services will be interested in this review." } ]
query-laysum	5898	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm birth (PTB) remains the foremost global cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Thus, the prevention of spontaneous PTB still remains of critical importance. In an attempt to prevent PTB in singleton pregnancies, cervical cerclage, in combination with other treatments, has been advocated. This is because, cervical cerclage is an intervention that is commonly recommended in women with a short cervix at high risk of preterm birth but, despite this, many women still deliver prematurely, as the biological mechanism is incompletely understood. Additionally, previous Cochrane Reviews have been published on the effectiveness of cervical cerclage in singleton and multiple pregnancies, however, none has evaluated the effectiveness of using cervical cerclage in combination with other treatments.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether antibiotics administration, vaginal pessary, reinforcing or second cerclage placement, tocolytic, progesterone, or other interventions at the time of cervical cerclage placement prolong singleton gestation in women at high risk of pregnancy loss based on prior history and/or ultrasound finding of ’short cervix’ and/or physical examination.\nHistory-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 12 and 15 weeks gestation based solely on poor prior obstetrical history, e.g. multiple second trimester losses due to painless dilatation. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 16 and 23 weeks gestation for transvaginal ultrasound cervical length < 20 mm in a woman without cervical dilatation.\nPhysical exam-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 16 and 23 weeks gestation because of cervical dilatation of one or more centimetres detected on physical (manual) examination.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (26 September 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included published, unpublished or ongoing randomised controlled trial (RCTs). Studies using a cluster-RCT design were also eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. We excluded quasi-RCTs (e.g. those randomised by date of birth or hospital number) and studies using a cross-over design. We also excluded studies that specified addition of the combination therapy after cervical cerclage because the woman subsequently became symptomatic. We included studies comparing cervical cerclage in combination with one, two or more interventions with cervical cerclage alone in singleton pregnancies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for this review's main outcomes. Data were checked for accuracy. Standard Cochrane review methods were used throughout.\nMain results\nWe identified two studies (involving a total of 73 women) comparing cervical cerclage alone to a different comparator. We also identified three ongoing studies (one investigating vaginal progesterone after cerclage, and two investigating cerclage plus pessary).\nOne study (20 women), conducted in the UK, comparing cervical cerclage in combination with a tocolytic (salbutamol) with cervical cerclage alone in women with singleton pregnancy did not provide any useable data for this review. The other study (involving 53 women, with data from 50 women) took place in the USA and compared cervical cerclage in combination with a tocolytic (indomethacin) and antibiotics (cefazolin or clindamycin) versus cervical cerclage alone - this study did provide useable data for this review (and the study authors also provided additional data on request) but meta-analyses were not possible. This study was generally at a low risk of bias, apart from issues relating to blinding. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for serious risk of bias and imprecision (few participants, few events and wide 95% confidence intervals).\nCervical cerclage in combination with an antibiotic and tocolytic versus cervical cerclage alone (one study, 50 women/babies)\nWe are unclear about the effect of cervical cerclage in combination with antibiotics and a tocolytic compared with cervical cerclage alone on the risk of serious neonatal morbidity (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.24; very low-certainty evidence); perinatal loss (data for miscarriage and stillbirth only - data not available for neonatal death) (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.64; very low-certainty evidence) or preterm birth < 34 completed weeks of pregnancy (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.40; very low-certainty evidence). There were no stillbirths (intrauterine death at 24 or more weeks).\nThe trial authors did not report on the numbers of babies discharged home healthy (without obvious pathology) or on the risk of neonatal death.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effect of combining a tocolytic (indomethacin) and antibiotics (cefazolin/clindamycin) with cervical cerclage compared with cervical cerclage alone for preventing spontaneous PTB in women with singleton pregnancies.\nFuture studies should recruit sufficient numbers of women to provide meaningful results and should measure neonatal death and numbers of babies discharged home healthy, as well as other important outcomes listed in this review.\nWe did not identify any studies looking at other treatments in combination with cervical cerclage. Future research needs to focus on the role of other interventions such as vaginal support pessary, reinforcing or second cervical cerclage placement, 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate or dydrogesterone or vaginal micronised progesterone, omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation and bed rest.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The cervix is a cylinder-shaped neck of tissue connecting the vagina and uterus (womb). The cervix should stayed closed during pregnancy, but some pregnant women have cervical weakness resulting in pain-free opening of the cervix. This may lead to a late miscarriage or preterm birth before 37 weeks of pregnancy. A cervical stitch is a surgical procedure performed in the second trimester to place a stitch around the cervical neck with the intention of helping the woman carry the pregnancy until around 37 weeks. Other treatments that can be combined with cervical stitch include antibiotics, vaginal support inserts (pessaries), placement of a second cervical stitch, uterine relaxants (tocolytics), progesterone (hormonal drugs), omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and bed rest." } ]
query-laysum	5899	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with cystic fibrosis (CF) and pancreatic insufficiency are at risk of a deficiency in fat-soluble vitamins, including vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency predominantly causes eye and skin problems, while excessive levels of vitamin A can harm the respiratory and skeletal systems in children and interfere with the metabolism of other fat-soluble vitamins. Most CF centres administer vitamin A as supplements to reduce the frequency of vitamin A deficiency in people with CF and to improve clinical outcomes such as growth, although the recommended dose varies between different guidelines. Thus, a systematic review on vitamin A and vitamin A-like supplementation (carotenes or other retinoids) in people with CF would help guide clinical practice. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo determine if supplementation with vitamin A, carotenes or other retinoid supplements in children and adults with CF reduces the frequency of vitamin A deficiency disorders, improves general and respiratory health and affects the frequency of vitamin A toxicity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Additionally we searched several ongoing trials registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry.\nMost recent database searches: 01 June 2018.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing all preparations of oral vitamin A, carotenes or retinoids (or in combination), used as a supplement compared to placebo at any dose, for at least three months, in people with CF (diagnosed by sweat tests or genetic testing) with and without pancreatic insufficiency.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors individually assessed study quality and extracted data on outcome measures. The authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. Investigators were contacted to retrieve missing quantitative data.\nMain results\nNo studies of vitamin A or other retinoid supplementation were eligible for inclusion. However, one randomised study of beta (β)-carotene supplementation involving 24 people with CF who were receiving pancreatic enzyme substitution was included. The study compared successive β-carotene supplementation periods (high dose followed by low dose) compared to placebo. The results for the low-dose supplementation period should be interpreted with caution, due to the lack of a wash-out period after the high-dose supplementation.\nThe included study did not report on two of the review's primary outcomes (vitamin A deficiency disorders and mortality); results for our third primary outcome of growth and nutritional status (reported as z score for height) showed no difference between supplementation and placebo, mean difference (MD) -0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.89 to 0.43) (low-quality evidence). With regards to secondary outcomes, supplementation with high-dose β-carotene for three months led to significantly fewer days of systemic antibiotics required to treat pulmonary exacerbations, compared to controls, MD -15 days (95% CI -27.60 to -2.40); however, this was not maintained in the second three-month section of the study when the level of β-carotene supplementation was reduced, MD -8 days (95% CI -18.80 to 2.80) (low-quality evidence). There were no statistically significant effects between groups in lung function (low-quality evidence) and no adverse events were observed (low-quality evidence). Supplementation affected levels of β-carotene in plasma, but not vitamin A levels. The study did not report on quality of life or toxicity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince no randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies on retinoid supplementation were identified, no conclusion on the supplementation of vitamin A in people with CF can be drawn. Additionally, due to methodological limitations in the included study, also reflected in the low-quality evidence judged following the specific evidence grading system (GRADE), no clear conclusions on β-carotene supplementation can be drawn. Until further data are available, country- or region-specific guidelines regarding these practices should be followed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "No studies comparing vitamin A or other retinoid supplements to placebo (dummy drug containing no vitamin A) were included, but we did find one study comparing beta-carotene supplementation (a precursor of vitamin A) to placebo. A total of 24 people with cystic fibrosis (aged 6.7 to 27.7 years) were put into groups at random and treated either with β-carotene capsules (at a high dose for three months followed by a low dose for a further three months) or with placebo (for six months)." } ]
query-laysum	5900	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCerebral small vessel disease is a progressive disease of the brain's deep perforating blood vessels. It is usually diagnosed based on lesions seen on brain imaging. Cerebral small vessel disease is a common cause of stroke but can also cause a progressive cognitive decline. As antithrombotic therapy is an established treatment for stroke prevention, we sought to determine whether antithrombotic therapy might also be effective in preventing cognitive decline in people with small vessel disease.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antithrombotic therapy for prevention of cognitive decline in people with small vessel disease on neuroimaging but without dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Review Group's Specialised Register, and the Cochrane Stroke Group's Specialised Register; the most recent search was on 21 July 2021. We also searched MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries. We searched the reference lists of the articles retrieved from these searches. As trials with a stroke focus may include relevant subgroup data, we complemented these searches with a focussed search of all antithrombotic titles in the Cochrane Stroke Group database.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) of people with neuroimaging evidence of at least mild cerebral small vessel disease (defined here as white matter hyperintensities, lacunes of presumed vascular origin and subcortical infarcts) but with no evidence of dementia. The trials had to compare antithrombotic therapy of minimum 24 weeks' duration to no antithrombotic therapy (either placebo or treatment as usual), or compare different antithrombotic treatment regimens. Antithrombotic therapy could include antiplatelet agents (as monotherapy or combination therapy), anticoagulants or a combination.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all the titles identified by the searches. We assessed full texts for eligibility for inclusion according to our prespecified selection criteria, extracted data to a proforma and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Due to heterogeneity across included participants, interventions and outcomes of eligible trials, it was not possible to perform meta-analyses.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs (3384 participants). One study investigated the effect of antithrombotic therapy in participants not yet on antithrombotic therapy; two studies investigated the effect of additional antithrombotic therapy, one in a population already taking a single antithrombotic agent and one in a mixed population (participants on an antithrombotic drug and antithrombotic-naive participants). Intervention and follow-up durations varied from 24 weeks to four years.\nJia 2016 was a placebo-controlled trial assessing 24 weeks of treatment with DL-3-n-butylphthalide (a compound with multimodal actions, including a putative antiplatelet effect) in 280 Chinese participants with vascular cognitive impairment caused by subcortical ischaemic small vessel disease, but without dementia. There was very low-certainty evidence for a small difference in cognitive test scores favouring treatment with DL-3-n-butylphthalide, as measured by the 12-item Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (adjusted mean difference −1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.02 to −0.12), but this difference may not be clinically relevant. There was also very low-certainty evidence for greater proportional improvement measured with the Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change-Plus Caregiver Input (57% with DL-3-n-butylphthalide versus 42% with placebo; P = 0.01), but there was no difference in other measures of cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination and Clinical Dementia Rating) or function. There was no evidence of a difference in adverse events between treatment groups.\nThe SILENCE RCT compared antithrombotic therapy (aspirin) and placebo during four years of treatment in 83 participants with 'silent brain infarcts' who were on no prior antithrombotic therapy. There was very low-certainty evidence for no difference between groups across various measures of cognition and function, rates of stroke or adverse events.\nThe Secondary Prevention of Subcortical Stroke Study (SPS3) compared dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel plus aspirin) to aspirin alone in 3020 participants with recent lacunar stroke. There was low-certainty evidence of no effect on cognitive outcomes as measured by the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instruments (CASI) assessed annually over five years. There was also low-certainty evidence of no difference in the annual incidence of mild cognitive decline between the two treatment groups (9.7% with dual antiplatelet therapy versus 9.9% with aspirin), or the annual stroke recurrence rate (2.5% with dual antiplatelet therapy versus 2.7% with aspirin). Bleeding risk may be higher with dual antiplatelet therapy (hazard ratio (HR) 2.15, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.11; low certainty evidence), but there may be no significant increase in intracerebral bleeding risk (HR 1.52, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.93; low-certainty evidence).\nNone of the included trials assessed the incidence of new dementia.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no convincing evidence to suggest any clinically relevant cognitive benefit of using antithrombotic therapy in addition to standard treatment in people with cerebral small vessel disease but without dementia, but there may be an increased bleeding risk with this approach. There was marked heterogeneity across the trials and the certainty of the evidence was generally poor.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Are blood-thinning medications effective and safe in preventing the decline in memory and thinking in people with cerebral small vessel disease?" } ]
query-laysum	5901	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is a malignant cancer of hematopoietic stem cells. The treatment of AML consists of two treatment phases: the remission induction phase to achieve a rapid, complete remission (CR) and the consolidation phase to achieve a durable molecular remission. People in CR are at risk of AML relapse, and people with relapsed AML have poor survival prospects. Thus, there is a continuous need for treatments to further improve prognosis. Interleukin-2 (IL-2), an immune-stimulatory cytokine, is an alternative to standard treatment for people with AML to maintain the efficacy after consolidation therapy. Maintenance therapy is not an integral part of the standard treatment for AML. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of IL-2 as maintenance therapy for people with AML in first CR, but the effect of IL-2 is not yet fully established.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL-2 as maintenance therapy for children and adults with AML who have achieved first CR and have not relapsed.\nSearch methods\nWe systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2015), EMBASE (1950 to August 2015), LILACS (1982 to August 2015), CBM (1978 to August 2015), relevant conference proceedings (2000 to 2015), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (since inception to August 2015) of ongoing and unpublished trials. In addition, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IL-2 with no treatment in people with AML who had achieved first CR and had not relapsed. We did not identify studies comparing IL-2 versus best supportive care or maintenance chemotherapy or studies comparing IL-2 plus maintenance chemotherapy versus maintenance chemotherapy alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies, extracted data with a predefined extraction form, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We extracted data on the following outcomes: disease-free survival, overall survival, event-free survival, treatment-related mortality, adverse events, and quality of life. We measured the treatment effect on time-to-event outcomes and dichotomous outcomes with hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio, respectively. We used inverse-variance method to combine HRs with fixed-effect model unless there was significant between-study heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs with a total of 1665 participants, comparing IL-2 with no treatment. Six studies included adult participants, and three studies included both adults and children. However, the latter three studies did not report data for children, thus we were unable to conduct subgroup analysis of children. One Chinese study did not report any outcomes of interest for this review. We included six trials involving 1426 participants in the meta-analysis on disease-free survival, and included five trials involving 1355 participants in the meta-analysis on overall survival. There is no evidence for difference between IL-2 group and no-treatment group regarding disease-free survival (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06, P = 0.37; quality of evidence: low) or overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16, P = 0.35; quality of evidence: moderate). Based on one trial of 161 participants, IL-2 exerted no effect on event-free survival (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32, P = 0.88; quality of evidence: low). Adverse events (including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, malaise/fatigue, and infection/fever) were more frequent in participants receiving IL-2, according to one trial of 308 participants. No mortality due to adverse events was reported. None of the included studies reported treatment-related mortality or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence for a difference between IL-2 maintenance therapy and no treatment with respect to disease-free survival or overall survival of people with AML in first CR; however, the quality of the evidence is moderate or low, and further research is likely or very likely to have an important impact on the estimate or our confidence in the estimate. Adverse events seem to be more frequent in participants treated with IL-2, but the quality of the evidence is very low and our confidence in the estimates is very uncertain. Thus, further prospective randomised trials are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn on these issues.\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": "The aim of this review is to assess and summarise any scientific studies that focus on the efficacy and harmful effect of IL-2 as maintenance therapy for children and adults with AML who have achieved first CR and have not relapsed." } ]
query-laysum	5902	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAntiplatelet agents are recommended for people with myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndromes, transient ischaemic attack or stroke, and for those in whom coronary stents have been inserted. People who take antiplatelet agents are at increased risk of adverse events when undergoing non-cardiac surgery because of these indications. However, taking antiplatelet therapy also introduces risk to the person undergoing surgery because the likelihood of bleeding is increased. Discontinuing antiplatelet therapy before surgery might reduce this risk but subsequently it might make thrombotic problems, such as myocardial infarction, more likely.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of continuation versus discontinuation for at least five days of antiplatelet therapy on the occurrence of bleeding and ischaemic events in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery under general, spinal or regional anaesthesia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2018), and Embase (1974 to January 2018). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies, and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials of adults who were taking single or dual antiplatelet therapy, for at least two weeks, and were scheduled for elective non-cardiac surgery. Included participants had at least one cardiac risk factor. We planned to include quasi-randomized studies.\nWe excluded people scheduled for minor surgeries under local anaesthetic or sedation in which bleeding that required transfusion or additional surgery was unlikely. We included studies which compared perioperative continuation of antiplatelet therapy versus discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy or versus substitution of antiplatelet therapy with a placebo for at least five days before surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and synthesized findings. Our primary outcomes were: all-cause mortality at longest follow-up (up to six months); all-cause mortality (up to 30 days). Secondary outcomes included: blood loss requiring transfusion of blood products; blood loss requiring further surgical intervention; risk of ischaemic events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome\nMain results\nWe included five RCTs with 666 randomized adults. We identified three ongoing studies.\nAll study participants were scheduled for elective general surgery (including abdominal, urological, orthopaedic and gynaecological surgery) under general, spinal or regional anaesthesia. Studies compared continuation of single or dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin or clopidogrel) with discontinuation of therapy for at least five days before surgery.\nThree studies reported adequate methods of randomization, and two reported methods to conceal allocation. Three studies were placebo-controlled trials and were at low risk of performance bias, and three studies reported adequate methods to blind outcome assessors to group allocation. Attrition was limited in four studies and two studies had reported prospective registration with clinical trial registers and were at low risk of selective outcome reporting bias.\nWe reported mortality at two time points: the longest follow-up reported by study authors up to six months, and time point reported by study authors up to 30 days. Five studies reported mortality up to six months (of which four studies had a longest follow-up at 30 days, and one study at 90 days) and we found that either continuation or discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy may make little or no difference to mortality up to six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 4.27; 659 participants; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is three more deaths per 1000 with continuation of antiplatelets (ranging from eight fewer to 40 more). Combining the four studies with a longest follow-up at 30 days alone showed the same effect estimate, and we found that either continuation or discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy may make little or no difference to mortality at 30 days after surgery (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.27; 616 participants; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is three more deaths per 1000 with continuation of antiplatelets (ranging from nine fewer to 42 more).\nWe found that either continuation or discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy probably makes little or no difference in incidences of blood loss requiring transfusion (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.26; 368 participants; absolute effect of 42 more participants per 1000 requiring transfusion in the continuation group, ranging from 19 fewer to 119 more; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference in incidences of blood loss requiring additional surgery (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 7.58; 368 participants; absolute effect of six more participants per 1000 requiring additional surgery in the continuation group, ranging from seven fewer to 71 more; four studies; low-certainty evidence). We found that either continuation or discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy may make little or no difference to incidences of ischaemic events (to include peripheral ischaemia, cerebral infarction, and myocardial infarction) within 30 days of surgery (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.77; 616 participants; absolute effect of 17 fewer participants per 1000 with an ischaemic event in the continuation group, ranging from 39 fewer to 40 more; four studies; low-certainty evidence).\nWe used the GRADE approach to downgrade evidence for all outcomes owing to limited evidence from few studies. We noted a wide confidence in effect estimates for mortality at the end of follow-up and at 30 days, and for blood loss requiring transfusion which suggested imprecision. We noted visual differences in study results for ischaemic events which suggested inconsistency.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low-certainty evidence that either continuation or discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy before non-cardiac surgery may make little or no difference to mortality, bleeding requiring surgical intervention, or ischaemic events. We found moderate-certainty evidence that either continuation or discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy before non-cardiac surgery probably makes little or no difference to bleeding requiring transfusion. Evidence was limited to few studies with few participants, and with few events. The three ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once published and assessed.\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 set out to determine whether continuing to take antiplatelet drugs before non-cardiac surgery that requires general, spinal or regional anaesthesia increases the risk of experiencing serious bleeding, ischaemic event or death in adults, when compared with stopping antiplatelet drugs for at least five days before non-cardiac surgery." } ]
query-laysum	5903	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013. Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs), including tunnelled CVCs (TCVCs) and totally implanted devices or ports (TIDs), are increasingly used when treating people with cancer. Despite international guidelines on sterile insertion and appropriate CVC maintenance and use, infections remain a common complication. These infections are mainly caused by gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrobial prevention strategies aimed at these micro-organisms could potentially decrease the majority of CVC-related infections. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of gram-positive infections in people with cancer who have long-term CVCs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of administering antibiotics prior to the insertion of long-term CVCs or as a flush/lock solution, or both during long-term CVC access to prevent gram-positive CVC-related infections in adults and children receiving treatment for cancer.\nSearch methods\nThe search for this updated review was conducted on 19 November 2020. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal for additional articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared either the administration of prophylactic antibiotics prior to long-term CVC insertion versus no administration of antibiotics, or the use of an antibiotic versus a non-antibiotic flush/lock solution in long-term CVCs, in adults and children receiving treatment for cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently selected studies, classified them and extracted data onto a predesigned data collection form. The outcomes of interest were gram-positive catheter-related infection events and total number of CVCs and CVC days. We pooled the data using a random-effects model for meta-analyses. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nFor this update, we identified 310 potentially relevant studies and screened them for eligibility. We included one additional RCT with 404 participants. The original review included 11 RCTs with a total of 840 people with cancer (adults and children). In total this review included 12 RCTs with 1244 participants.\nAntibiotics prior to insertion of the CVC\nSix trials compared the use of antibiotics (vancomycin, teicoplanin, ceftazidime or cefazolin) versus no antibiotics given before the insertion of a long-term CVC. One study did not observe any CVC-related infection events in either group was not included in the quantitative analysis as it was not possible to calculate a risk ratio. Administering an antibiotic prior to insertion of the CVC may not reduce gram-positive CVC-related infections (pooled risk ratio 0.67, confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.32 to 1.43; control versus intervention group risk 10.4% versus 7.3% of the participants; 5 studies, 648 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We sought adverse event data, but these were not described by the authors. The overall risk of bias was deemed low.\nAntibiotics as a flushing or locking solution\nSix trials compared a combined antibiotic (vancomycin, amikacin or taurolidine) and heparin solution with a heparin-only solution for flushing or locking the long-term CVC after use. One study did not observe any CVC-related sepsis events (CRS) and was not included in this study in the quantitative analysis as it was not possible to calculate a risk ratio. Flushing and locking long-term CVCs with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution likely reduced the risk of gram-positive CVC-related infections compared to a heparin-only solution (pooled rate ratio 0.47, CI 95% 0.26 to 0.85; control versus intervention group rate ratio 0.66 versus 0.27 per 1000 CVC-days; 5 studies, 443 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial reported a higher incidence of occlusions and participants in one trial reported an unpleasant taste after flushing associated with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution. The overall risk of bias was deemed low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince the last version of this review, we included one additional study. There was no observed benefit of administering antibiotics before the insertion of long-term CVCs to prevent gram-positive CVC-related infections. Flushing or locking long-term CVCs with an antibiotic solution likely reduces gram-positive CVC-related infections experienced in people at risk of neutropenia through chemotherapy or disease. However, a limitation of this review is heterogeneity between the studies for both outcomes. Insufficient data were available to evaluate if the conclusions apply equally for different CVC types and for adults versus children. It must be noted that the use of an antibiotic flush/lock solution may increase microbial antibiotic resistance, therefore it should be reserved for high-risk people or if the baseline CVC-related infection rates are high. Further research is needed to identify high-risk groups most likely to benefit from these antibiotic flush/lock solutions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The issue\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "People undergoing anti-cancer treatment (chemotherapy) often have a catheter (tube) inserted into a large vein, through which their chemotherapy is given. This is known as a central venous catheter (CVC). As chemotherapy is usually administered over several months to years, long-term CVCs are used. Despite sterile insertion and care afterwards, these CVCs often become infected by a type of bacteria called gram-positive bacteria. Giving antibiotics as a preventive (prophylactic antibiotics) before the catheter is inserted, or using the antibiotics as a lock or flush solution, or both, may prevent these infections. A lock/flush solution is instilled in the catheter when it is not in use. This solution often contains heparin, saline, or both, to prevent a clot forming in the catheter." } ]
query-laysum	5904	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) are commonly used in assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles to prevent a luteinising hormone surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) prior to planned oocyte retrieval, thus optimising the chances of live birth.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of the different GnRHa protocols as adjuncts to COH in women undergoing ART cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases from inception to April 2015: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and registries of ongoing trials. Reference lists of relevant articles were also searched.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two protocols of GnRHa used in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in subfertile women.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcome measure was number of live births or ongoing pregnancies per woman/couple randomised. Secondary outcome measures were number of clinical pregnancies, number of oocytes retrieved, dose of gonadotrophins used, adverse effects (pregnancy losses, ovarian hyperstimulation, cycle cancellation, and premature luteinising hormone (LH) surges), and cost and acceptability of the regimens. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous variables and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) methods.\nMain results\nWe included 37 RCTs (3872 women), one ongoing trial, and one trial awaiting classification. These trials made nine different comparisons between protocols. Twenty of the RCTs compared long protocols and short protocols. Only 19/37 RCTs reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy.\nThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference between a long protocol and a short protocol in live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.81; 12 RCTs, n = 976 women, I² = 15%, low quality evidence). Our findings suggest that in a population in which 14% of women achieve live birth or ongoing pregnancy using a short protocol, between 13% and 23% will achieve live birth or ongoing pregnancy using a long protocol. There was evidence of an increase in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.92; 20 RCTs, n = 1643 women, I² = 27%, moderate quality evidence) associated with the use of a long protocol.\nThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups in terms of live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates when the following GnRHa protocols were compared: long versus ultrashort protocol (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.36; one RCT, n = 150 women, low quality evidence), long luteal versus long follicular phase protocol (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.10; one RCT, n = 223 women, low quality evidence), when GnRHa was stopped versus when it was continued (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.33; three RCTs, n = 290 women, I² = 0%, low quality evidence), when the dose of GnRHa was reduced versus when the same dose was continued (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.52; four RCTs, n = 407 women, I² = 0%, low quality evidence), when GnRHa was discontinued versus continued after human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration in the long protocol (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.64; one RCT, n = 181 women, low quality evidence), and when administration of GnRHa lasted for two versus three weeks before stimulation (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.68; one RCT, n = 85 women, low quality evidence). Our primary outcomes were not reported for any other comparisons.\nRegarding adverse events, there were insufficient data to enable us to reach any conclusions except about the cycle cancellation rate. There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in cycle cancellation rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.55; 11 RCTs, n = 1026 women, I² = 42%, low quality evidence) when a long protocol was compared with a short protocol. This suggests that in a population in which 9% of women would have their cycles cancelled using a short protocol, between 5.5% and 14% will have cancelled cycles when using a long protocol.\nThe quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or ongoing pregnancy, poor reporting of methods in the primary studies, and imprecise findings due to lack of data. Only 10 of the 37 included studies were conducted within the last 10 years.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen long GnRHa protocols and short GnRHa protocols were compared, we found no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates, but there was moderate quality evidence of higher clinical pregnancy rates in the long protocol group. None of the other analyses showed any evidence of a difference in birth or pregnancy outcomes between the protocols compared. There was insufficient evidence to make any conclusions regarding adverse effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In comparisons of long GnRHa protocols (where GnRHa is given for at least 14 days prior to the start of ovarian stimulation) versus short GnRHa protocols (when the GnRHa is given at the start of stimulation) there was no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates. However there was moderate quality evidence of higher clinical pregnancy rates in the long protocol groups. Our findings suggest that in a population in which 14% of women achieve live birth or ongoing pregnancy using a short protocol, between 13% and 23% will achieve live birth or ongoing pregnancy using a long protocol.\nNone of the other analyses showed any evidence of a difference in birth or pregnancy outcomes between the protocols compared. There was insufficient evidence to make any conclusions regarding adverse effects. Further research is needed to determine which long protocol is most cost effective and acceptable to women." } ]
query-laysum	5905	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. These unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used or proposed to be used as prophylaxis for this condition, to help reduce the frequency of the attacks. These are predominantly based on treatments that are in use for headache migraine, with the belief that the underlying pathophysiology of these conditions is similar.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, antiepileptics, antidepressants, diuretics, monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (or its receptor), botulinum toxin or hormonal modification with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with a cross-over design, unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 3 months, 3 to < 6 months, > 6 to 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included three studies with a total of 209 participants. One evaluated beta-blockers and the other two evaluated calcium channel blockers. We did not identify any evidence for the remaining interventions of interest.\nBeta-blockers versus placebo\nOne study (including 130 participants, 61% female) evaluated the use of 95 mg metoprolol once daily for six months, compared to placebo. The proportion of people who reported improvement in vertigo was not assessed in this study. Some data were reported on the frequency of vertigo attacks at six months and the occurrence of serious adverse effects. However, this is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was low or very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.\nCalcium channel blockers versus no treatment\nTwo studies, which included a total of 79 participants (72% female), assessed the use of 10 mg flunarizine once daily for three months, compared to no intervention. All of the evidence for this comparison was of very low certainty. Most of our outcomes were only reported by a single study, therefore we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis. Some data were reported on improvement in vertigo and change in vertigo, but no information was available regarding serious adverse events. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results, as these data come from single, small studies and the certainty of the evidence was very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very limited evidence from placebo-controlled randomised trials regarding the efficacy and potential harms of pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. We only identified evidence for two of our interventions of interest (beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers) and all evidence was of low or very low certainty. Further research is necessary to identify whether these treatments are effective at improving symptoms and whether there are any harms associated with their use.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is vestibular migraine treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Typical treatment plans include medications to try and stop an attack of vertigo once it has started, or to improve the symptoms. In addition, people may use treatments intended to prevent attacks from starting (prophylactic or preventative treatment). There are no widely recommended treatments to prevent or manage the symptoms of a vestibular migraine attack. People are sometimes advised to take medications used to treat headache migraine. The assumption is that these medicines may also work for vestibular migraine." } ]
query-laysum	5906	[ { "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: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found four studies with a total of 746 adult men and women undergoing abdominal surgery for removal of cancer. All studies were reanalyses of previously conducted trials, which means that none of the included studies was actually designed to investigate tumour recurrence. All patients underwent primary cancer surgery, which means that surgery on cancer metastases was not included. A total of 354 participants received general anaesthesia and 392 participants received a general anaesthesia along with an epidural anaesthesia. Epidural anaesthesia is a certain type of regional anaesthesia by which a numbing medication is injected continuously via a catheter into the epidural space. The epidural space serves as the outermost surrounding of the spinal cord. Numbing medication injected into the epidural space causes certain parts of the belly area to go numb and be insensitive to pain. Study participants were followed for at least 7.8 years after they had undergone cancer surgery." } ]
query-laysum	5907	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma management guidelines recommend low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for adults and adolescents with persistent asthma. The addition of anti-leukotriene agents to ICS offers a therapeutic option in cases of suboptimal control with daily ICS.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of anti-leukotriene agents added to ICS compared with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS (in both arms) for adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with persistent asthma. Also, to determine whether any characteristics of participants or treatments might affect the magnitude of response.\nSearch methods\nWe identified relevant studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP from inception to August 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older on a maintenance dose of ICS for whom investigators added anti-leukotrienes to the ICS and compared treatment with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (except when both groups tapered the dose of ICS, in which case the primary outcome was the % reduction in ICS dose from baseline with maintained asthma control). Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, lung function, asthma control, quality of life, withdrawals and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included in the review 37 studies representing 6128 adult and adolescent participants (most with mild to moderate asthma). Investigators in these studies used three leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs): montelukast (n = 24), zafirlukast (n = 11) and pranlukast (n = 2); studies lasted from four weeks to five years.\nAnti-leukotrienes and ICS versus same dose of ICS\nOf 16 eligible studies, 10 studies, representing 2364 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Anti-leukotriene agents given as adjunct therapy to ICS reduced by half the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.86; 815 participants; four studies; moderate quality); this is equivalent to a number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) over six to 16 weeks of 22 (95% CI 16 to 75). Only one trial including 368 participants reported mortality and serious adverse events, but events were too infrequent for researchers to draw a conclusion. Four trials reported all adverse events, and the pooled result suggested little difference between groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.22; 1024 participants; three studies; moderate quality). Investigators noted between-group differences favouring the addition of anti-leukotrienes for morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), asthma symptoms and night-time awakenings, but not for reduction in β2-agonist use or evening PEFR.\nAnti-leukotrienes and ICS versus higher dose of ICS\nOf 15 eligible studies, eight studies, representing 2008 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Results showed no statistically significant difference in the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39; 1779 participants; four studies; moderate quality) nor in all adverse events between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 1899 participants; six studies; low quality). Three trials reported no deaths among 834 participants. Results showed no statistically significant differences in lung function tests including morning PEFR and FEV1 nor in asthma control measures including use of rescue β2-agonists or asthma symptom scores.\nAnti-leukotrienes and ICS versus tapering dose of ICS\nSeven studies, representing 1150 adults and adolescents, evaluated the combination of anti-leukotrienes and tapering-dose of ICS compared with tapering-dose of ICS alone and contributed data. Investigators observed no statistically significant difference in % change from baseline ICS dose (mean difference (MD) -3.05, 95% CI -8.13 to 2.03; 930 participants; four studies; moderate quality), number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.04; 542 participants; five studies; low quality) or all adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 1100 participants; six studies; moderate quality). Serious adverse events occurred more frequently among those taking anti-leukotrienes plus tapering ICS than in those taking tapering doses of ICS alone (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.92; 621 participants; two studies; moderate quality), but deaths were too infrequent for researchers to draw any conclusions about mortality. Data showed no improvement in lung function nor in asthma control measures.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor adolescents and adults with persistent asthma, with suboptimal asthma control with daily use of ICS, the addition of anti-leukotrienes is beneficial for reducing moderate and severe asthma exacerbations and for improving lung function and asthma control compared with the same dose of ICS. We cannot be certain that the addition of anti-leukotrienes is superior, inferior or equivalent to a higher dose of ICS. Scarce available evidence does not support anti-leukotrienes as an ICS sparing agent, and use of LTRAs was not associated with increased risk of withdrawals or adverse effects, with the exception of an increase in serious adverse events when the ICS dose was tapered. Information was insufficient for assessment of mortality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "A daily low dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is the recommended first preventer treatment offered to adults and teenagers with asthma. Patients with inadequate asthma control are often treated by adding an anti-leukotriene (LTRA) or a long-acting β2-agonist, or by increasing the dose of ICS." } ]
query-laysum	5908	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGM-CSF (granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor) is a growth factor that is used to supplement culture media in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for those undergoing assisted reproduction. It is worth noting that the use of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media often adds a further cost to the price of an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle. The purpose of this review was to assess the available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness and safety of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of GM-CSF-supplemented human embryo culture media versus culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF, in women or couples undergoing assisted reproduction.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, OpenGrey, PubMed, Google Scholar, and two trials registers on 15 October 2019, checked references of relevant papers and communicated with experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing GM-CSF (including G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor))-supplemented embryo culture media versus any other non-GM-CSF-supplemented embryo culture media (control) in women undergoing assisted reproduction.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple gestation, preterm birth, birth defects, aneuploidy, and stillbirth rates. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology. We undertook one comparison, GM-CSF-supplemented culture media versus culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF, for those undergoing assisted reproduction.\nMain results\nWe included five studies, the data for three of which (1532 participants) were meta-analysed. We are uncertain whether GM-CSF-supplemented culture media makes any difference to the live-birth rate when compared to using conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.52, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 69%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth associated with conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF was 22%, the rate with the use of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media would be between 21% and 30%.\nWe are uncertain whether GM-CSF-supplemented culture media makes any difference to the miscarriage rate when compared to using conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.36, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). This evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate associated with conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF was 4%, the rate with the use of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media would be between 2% and 5%.\nFurthermore, we are uncertain whether GM-CSF-supplemented culture media makes any difference to the following outcomes: clinical pregnancy (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.45, 3 RCTs, N = 1532 women, I2 = 67%, low-quality evidence); multiple gestation (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.10, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence); preterm birth (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.04, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 76%, very low-quality evidence); birth defects (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.01, I2 = 0%, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, low-quality evidence); and aneuploidy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.26, I2 = 0%, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, low-quality evidence). We were unable to undertake analysis of stillbirth, as there were no events in either arm of the two studies that assessed this outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the very low to low quality of the evidence, we cannot be certain whether GM-CSF is any more or less effective than culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF for clinical outcomes that reflect effectiveness and safety. It is important that independent information on the available evidence is made accessible to those considering using GM-CSF-supplemented culture media. The claims from marketing information that GM-CSF has a positive effect on pregnancy rates are not supported by the available evidence presented here; further well-designed, properly powered RCTs are needed to lend certainty to the evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What the review found\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Low-quality evidence reveals that we are uncertain whether GM-CSF-containing culture media makes any difference to the live-birth rate when compared to using culture media not containing GM-CSF. This suggests that if the rate of live birth associated with culture media not containing GM-CSF is 22%, the rate with the use of GM-CSF-containing culture media would be between 21% and 30%. Low-quality evidence also reveals that we are uncertain whether GM-CSF-containing culture media makes any difference to miscarriage when compared to using culture media not containing GM-CSF. This suggests that if the miscarriage rate associated with culture media not containing GM-CSF is 4%, the rate with the use of GM-CSF-containing culture media would be between 2% and 5%. Low-quality evidence for pregnancy, birth defects, and genetic problems with the baby, and very low-quality evidence for twin or triplet pregnancies, and premature birth, reveals that we are uncertain whether GM-CSF-containing culture media makes any difference to these outcomes when compared to culture media not containing GM-CSF. Two studies looked at stillbirth, but as no stillbirths occurred in either study, we were unable to analyse this outcome." } ]
query-laysum	5909	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFibroids are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on fertility. In women requesting preservation of fertility, fibroids can be surgically removed (myomectomy) by laparotomy, laparoscopically or hysteroscopically depending on the size, site and type of fibroid. Myomectomy is however a procedure that is not without risk and can result in serious complications. It is therefore essential to determine whether such a procedure can result in an improvement in fertility and, if so, to then determine the ideal surgical approach.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effect of myomectomy on fertility outcomes and to compare different surgical approaches.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and reference list of relevant papers. The final search was in February 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention or where different surgical approaches are compared regarding the effect on fertility outcomes in a group of infertile women suffering from uterine fibroids.\nData collection and analysis\nData collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with the procedure suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nThis review included four RCTs with 442 participants. The evidence was very low-quality with the main limitations being due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and indirectness.\nMyomectomy versus no intervention\nOne study examined the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention on reproductive outcomes. We are uncertain whether myomectomy improves clinical pregnancy rate for intramural (odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 6.14; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.66; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.09; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 3.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 14.57; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, we are uncertain whether myomectomy reduces miscarriage rate for intramural fibroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.78; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous fibroids (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.97; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous fibroids (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.10 to 6.54; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 12.33; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on live birth, preterm delivery, ongoing pregnancy or caesarean section rate.\nLaparoscopic myomectomy versus myomectomy by laparotomy or mini-laparotomy\nTwo studies compared laparoscopic myomectomy to myomectomy at laparotomy or mini-laparotomy. We are uncertain whether laparoscopic myomectomy compared to laparotomy or mini-laparotomy improves live birth rate (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.50; 177 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), preterm delivery rate (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.29; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.78; 177 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.26 to 10.04; 115 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), miscarriage rate (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.89; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), or caesarean section rate (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 21%, very low-quality evidence).\nMonopolar resectoscope versus bipolar resectoscope\nOne study evaluated the use of two electrosurgical systems during hysteroscopic myomectomy. We are uncertain whether bipolar resectoscope use compared to monopolar resectoscope use improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.50; 68 participants; one study, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.36; 68 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.34; participants = 68; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on preterm delivery or caesarean section rate.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence to determine the role of myomectomy for infertility in women with fibroids as only one trial compared myomectomy with no myomectomy. If the decision is made to have a myomectomy, the current evidence does not indicate a superior method (laparoscopy, laparotomy or different electrosurgical systems) to improve rates of live birth, preterm delivery, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, or caesarean section. Furthermore, the existing evidence needs to be viewed with caution due to the small number of events, minimal number of studies and very low-quality evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Cochrane authors reviewed the evidence about the effect on fertility with the surgical removal of fibroids in infertile women." } ]
query-laysum	5910	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNew minimal invasive surgeries have been suggested as alternative options to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy is a new technology that uses targeted, controlled water vapour energy (steam) to create necrotic tissue in the prostate.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and the Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 18 February 2020, with no restriction on the language or status of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and non-randomised observational prospective studies with concurrent comparison groups, in which men with BPH underwent convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy, another active therapy, or a sham procedure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We had planned to perform statistical analyses using a random-effects model, and interpret them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included a single, industry-sponsored RCT, with 197 randomised men, that compared convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy to a sham procedure. The mean age 62.9 years, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 21.97, and the mean prostate volume was 45.4 mL. We only found short-term data, measured up to three months.\nPrimary outcomes\nConvective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy may improve urologic symptom scores more than a sham procedure, measured on a IPSS scale (0 to 35; higher score represents worse urological symptoms) by a mean difference (MD) of -6.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) -9.06 to -4.74; 195 men; low-certainty evidence), and likely improves quality of life (QoL), measured on a IPSS-QoL scale (0 to 6; higher score represents worse QoL), by a MD of -1.2 (95% CI -1.66 to -0.74; 195 men; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy on major adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 6.79, 95% CI 0.39 to 117.00; 197 men; very low-certainty evidence) assessed by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of III, IV, and V complications.\nSecondary outcomes\nWe are very uncertain about the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy on retreatment (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 32.86; 197 men; very low-certainty evidence). Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy may have little to no effect on erectile function (MD 0.4, 95% CI -1.91 to 2.71; 130 men; low-certainty evidence) and ejaculatory function (MD 0.5, 95% CI -0.83 to 1.83; 130 men; low-certainty evidence). Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy may increase minor adverse events assessed by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of Grade I and II complications (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.11; 197 men; low-certainty evidence). This would correspond to 434 minor adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 264 more to 714 more). We are very uncertain about the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy on acute urinary retention (RR 4.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 86.63; 197 men; very low-certainty evidence). It likely greatly increases the rate of men requiring indwelling urinary catheters (RR 35.58, 95% CI 15.37 to 82.36; 197 men; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe were unable to perform any of the predefined secondary analyses.\nWe found no evidence for other comparisons, such as convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy versus TURP or other minimal invasive procedures.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to a sham procedure, urologic symptom scores and quality of life appear to improve with convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy, but we are very uncertain about major adverse events. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, with study limitations and imprecision being the most common reasons for rating down. These findings are based on a single industry-sponsored study, with three-month short-term follow-up. We did not find any studies comparing convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy to any other active treatment form, such as TURP.\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 are the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy in men with bothersome urinary symptoms because of an enlarged prostate?" } ]
query-laysum	5911	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPsoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.\nObjectives\nTo compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.\nSearch methods\nFor this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).\nData collection and analysis\nWe conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs).\nWe assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.\nWe used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).\nMain results\nThis update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source.\nNetwork meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents.\nFor reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate.\nWe found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution.\nFor other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence.\nThis NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice.\nWe found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality.\nMore randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed.\nEditorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included evidence up to October 2022." } ]
query-laysum	5912	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoarthritis is a chronic disease characterized by joint pain, tenderness, and limitation of movement. At present, no cure is available. Thus only treatment of the person's symptoms and treatment to prevent further development of the disease are possible. Clinical trials indicate that aquatic exercise may have advantages for people with osteoarthritis. This is an update of a published Cochrane review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of aquatic exercise for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis, or both, compared to no intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 28 April 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (from 1949), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Web of Science (from 1945). There was no language restriction.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled clinical trials of aquatic exercise compared to a control group (e.g. usual care, education, social attention, telephone call, waiting list for surgery) of participants with knee or hip osteoarthritis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We analysed the pooled results using standardized mean difference (SMD) values.\nMain results\nNine new trials met the inclusion criteria and we excluded two earlier included trials. Thus the number of participants increased from 800 to 1190 and the number of included trials increased from six to 13. Most participants were female (75%), with an average age of 68 years and a body mass index (BMI) of 29.4. Osteoarthritis duration was 6.7 years, with a great variation of the included participants. The mean aquatic exercise duration was 12 weeks. We found 12 trials at low to unclear risk of bias for all domains except blinding of participants and personnel. They showed that aquatic exercise caused a small short term improvement compared to control in pain (SMD −0.31, 95% CI −0.47 to −0.15; 12 trials, 1076 participants) and disability (SMD −0.32, 95% CI −0.47 to −0.17; 12 trials, 1059 participants). Ten trials showed a small effect on quality of life (QoL) (SMD −0.25, 95% CI −0.49 to −0.01; 10 trials, 971 participants). These effects on pain and disability correspond to a five point lower (95% CI three to eight points lower) score on mean pain and mean disability compared to the control group (scale 0 to 100), and a seven point higher (95% CI 0 to 13 points higher) score on mean QoL compared with control group (scale 0 to 100). No included trials performed a radiographic evaluation. No serious adverse events were reported in the included trials with relation to aquatic exercise.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate quality evidence that aquatic exercise may have small, short-term, and clinically relevant effects on patient-reported pain, disability, and QoL in people with knee and hip OA. The conclusions of this review update does not change those of the previous published version of this Cochrane review.\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": "Moderate quality evidence shows that among people with hip and knee osteoarthritis, aquatic exercise may reduce pain and disability, and increase quality of life immediately after the end of the programme of treatment. Further research may change these results." } ]
query-laysum	5913	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm birth remains the major risk factor for the development of intraventricular hemorrhage, an injury that occurs in 25% of very low birth weight infants. Intraventricular hemorrhage is thought to be venous in origin and intrinsic thromboses in the germinal matrix are likely to play a triggering role. Antithrombin, a glycoprotein synthesized in the liver, is the major plasma inhibitor of thrombin thus modulating blood coagulation. Very low birth weight newborn infants have low levels of antithrombin and the risk of developing intraventricular hemorrhage is increased by the presence of hypercoagulability in the first hours of life. The administration of anticoagulants such as antithrombin may offset the increased risk of developing intraventricular hemorrhage. Anticoagulants may also reduce the risk of developing parenchymal venous infarct, a condition known to complicate intraventricular hemorrhage.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether the prophylactic administration of antithrombin (started within the first 24 hours after birth) reduces the incidence of germinal matrix-intraventricular hemorrhage in very preterm neonates when compared to placebo, no treatment, or heparin.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015), MEDLINE (1996 to 22 November 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 22 November 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to 22 November 2015). No language restrictions were applied. We searched the abstracts of the major congresses in the field (Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Pediatric Academic Societies) from 2000 to 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster trials comparing the administration of early, i.e. within the first 24 hours of life, antithrombin in very preterm infants (gestational age < 32 weeks, any birth weight).\nData collection and analysis\nFor each of the included trials, two authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, antithrombin formulation (plasma-derived or recombinant), mode of administration, and duration of therapy, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review are intraventricular hemorrhage and severe intraventricular hemorrhage.\nMain results\nTwo randomized controlled trials, for a total of 182 infants, met the inclusion criteria of this review. Both trials compared antithrombin with placebo. We found no significant differences in the rates of intraventricular hemorrhage (typical RR 1.30, CI 95% 0.87 to 1.93, typical RD 0.09, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.23; 2 studies, 175 infants; I² = 18% for RR and I² = 42% for RD) and severe intraventricular hemorrhage (typical RR 1.04, CI 95% 0.55 to 1.94; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.12; 2 studies, 175 infants; I² = 0% for RR and I² = 0% for RD). Among secondary outcomes, we found no significant differences in terms of neonatal mortality (typical RR 2.00, CI 95% 0.62 to 6.45; typical RD 0.04, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.12; 2 studies, 182 infants; I² = 46% for RR and I² = 61% for RD) and in the other specified outcomes, such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The quality of the evidence supporting these findings is limited due to the imprecision of the estimates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe administration of antithrombin seems not to reduce the incidence and severity of intraventricular hemorrhage in very preterm infants. Limited evidence is available on other clinically relevant outcomes. Given the imprecision of the estimate, the results of this systematic review are consistent with either a benefit or a detrimental effect of antithrombin and do not provide a definitive answer to the review question.\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": "The use of antithrombin does not reduce the risks of bleeding in the brain, mortality or any other relevant outcomes in very preterm neonates when compared to placebo. However, the data collected are too limited to draw definitive conclusions on the use of antithrombin in the prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage (i.e. bleeding in the brain)." } ]
query-laysum	5914	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPrimary malignant brain tumours can have an unpredictable course, but high-grade gliomas typically have a relentlessly progressive disease trajectory. They can cause profound symptom burden, affecting physical, neurocognitive, and social functioning from an early stage in the illness. This can significantly impact on role function and on the experiences and needs of informal caregivers. Access to specialist palliative and supportive care early in the disease trajectory, for those with high-grade tumours in particular, has the potential to improve patients' and caregivers' quality of life. However, provision of palliative and supportive care for people with primary brain tumours - and their informal caregivers - is historically ill-defined and ad hoc, and the benefits of early palliative interventions have not been confirmed. It is therefore important to define the role and effectiveness of early referral to specialist palliative care services and/or the effectiveness of other interventions focused on palliating disease impact on people and their informal caregivers. This would help guide improvement to service provision, by defining those interventions which are effective across a range of domains, and developing an evidence-based model of integrated supportive and palliative care for this population.\nObjectives\nTo assess the evidence base for early palliative care interventions, including referral to specialist palliative care services compared to usual care, for improving outcomes in adults diagnosed with a primary brain tumour and their carers.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted searches of electronic databases, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO (last searched 16 November 2021). We conducted searches to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative search terms. In addition to this, we searched for any currently recruiting trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, and undertook citation tracking via Scopus. We also handsearched reference lists of potentially eligible systematic review articles to identify any other relevant studies, contacted experts in the field and searched key authors via Web of Science and searched SIGLE (System of Information on Grey Literature in Europe).\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies looking at early referral to specialist palliative care services - or early targeted palliative interventions by other healthcare professionals - for improving quality of life, symptom control, psychological outcomes, or overall survival as a primary or secondary outcome measure. Studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies (NRS), as well as qualitative and mixed-methods studies where both qualitative and quantitative data were included. Participants were adults with a confirmed radiological and/or histological diagnosis of a primary malignant brain tumour, and/or informal adult carers (either at individual or family level) of people with a primary malignant brain tumour.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data extraction, management, and analysis. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for symptom control, i.e. cognitive function.\nMain results\nWe identified 9748 references from the searches, with 8337 remaining after duplicates were removed. After full-text review, we included one trial. There were no studies of early specialist palliative care interventions or of early, co-ordinated generalist palliative care approaches.\nThe included randomised trial addressed a single symptom area, focusing on early cognitive rehabilitation, administered within two weeks of surgery in a mixed brain tumour population, of whom approximately half had a high-grade glioma. The intervention was administered individually as therapist-led computerised exercises over 16 one-hour sessions, four times/week for four weeks. Sessions addressed several cognitive domains including time orientation, spatial orientation, visual attention, logical reasoning, memory, and executive function.\nThere were no between-group differences in outcome for tests of logical-executive function, but differences were observed in the domains of visual attention and verbal memory. Risk of bias was assessed and stated as high for performance bias and attrition bias but for selective reporting it was unclear whether all outcomes were reported. We considered the certainty of the evidence, as assessed by GRADE, to be very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently there is a lack of research focusing on the introduction of early palliative interventions specifically for people with primary brain tumours, either as co-ordinated specialist palliative care approaches or interventions focusing on a specific aspect of palliation. Future research should address the methodological shortcomings described in early palliative intervention studies in other cancers and chronic conditions. In particular, the specific population under investigation, the timing and the setting of the intervention should be clearly described and the standardised palliative care-specific components of the intervention should be defined in detail.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why this question is important\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Brain tumours can have a significant impact on people and their carers. Brain tumours can impair people's physical, neurocognitive, and social functioning, which can affect the whole family, particularly informal caregivers, who often receive inadequate support. There is evidence in other cancers that providing access to palliative support in the early stages of a person's illness can help to improve their, and their caregivers', quality of life. However, it has not been confirmed that this is the case for people with brain tumours." } ]
query-laysum	5915	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients.\nObjectives\nWe examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life.\nSearch methods\nIn this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nIn this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMedication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.\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": "Whether medication reviews improve the health of hospitalised adult patients." } ]
query-laysum	5916	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe scientific literature examining effective treatments for opioid-dependent adults clearly indicates that pharmacotherapy is a necessary and acceptable component. Nevertheless, no reviews have been published that systematically assess the effectiveness of pharmacological maintenance treatment in adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions for retaining adolescents in treatment, reducing the use of substances and improving health and social status.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Trials Register (January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), PubMed (January 1966 to January 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to January 2014), Web of Science (1991 to January 2014) and reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and controlled clinical trials of any maintenance pharmacological interventions either alone or associated with psychosocial intervention compared with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacological intervention, pharmacological detoxification or psychosocial intervention in adolescents (13 to 18 years).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included two trials involving 189 participants. One study, with 35 participants, compared methadone with levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM) for maintenance treatment lasting 16 weeks, after which patients were detoxified. The other study, with 154 participants, compared maintenance treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone and detoxification with buprenorphine. We did not perform meta-analysis because the two studies assessed different comparisons.\nIn the study comparing methadone and LAAM, the authors declared that there was no difference in the use of a substance of abuse or social functioning (data not shown). The quality of the evidence was very low. No side effects, such as nausea, vomiting, constipation, weakness or fatigue, were reported by study participants.\nIn the comparison between buprenorphine maintenance and buprenorphine detoxification, maintenance treatment appeared to be more efficacious in retaining patients in treatment (drop-out risk ratio (RR) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.54), but not in reducing the number of patients with a positive urine test at the end of the study (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22). Self reported opioid use at one-year follow-up was significantly lower in the maintenance group, even though both groups reported a high level of opioid use (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). More patients in the maintenance group were enrolled in other addiction treatment programmes at 12-month follow-up (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.88). The quality of the evidence was low. No serious side effects attributable to buprenorphine-naloxone were reported by study participants and no patients were removed from the study due to side effects. The most common side effect was headache, which was reported by 16% to 21% of patients in both groups\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is difficult to draft conclusions on the basis of only two trials. One of the possible reasons for the lack of evidence could be the difficulty of conducting trials with young people for practical and ethical reasons.\nThere is an urgent need for further randomised controlled trials comparing maintenance treatment with detoxification treatment or psychosocial treatment alone before carrying out studies that compare different pharmacological maintenance treatments. These studies should have long follow-up and measure relapse rates after the end of treatment and social functioning (integration at school or at work, family relationships).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors searched the literature and identified two controlled trials from the USA that involved 187 heroin addicts, aged 14 to 21 years; the participants were treated as outpatients. One study of 37 participants compared methadone with levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM) for maintenance treatment. After 16 weeks of maintenance treatment the adolescents were detoxified. The second trial of 150 adolescents compared buprenorphine and naloxone as maintenance treatment for nine weeks followed by tapered doses for up to 12 weeks with buprenorphine detoxification over 14 days." } ]
query-laysum	5917	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPhysical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy aims to improve work status for workers on sick leave due to back pain. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review (originally titled 'Work conditioning, work hardening and functional restoration for workers with back and neck pain') first published in 2003, updated in 2010, and updated again in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy in reducing time lost from work and improving work status for workers with back pain. Further, to assess which aspects of physical conditioning are related to a faster return to work for workers with back pain.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to March 2012: CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), PsycINFO (from 1967), and PEDro.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs that studied workers with work disability related to back pain and who were included in physical conditioning programmes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included 41 articles reporting on 25 RCTs with 4404 participants. Risk of bias was low in 16 studies.\nThree studies involved workers with acute back pain, eight studies workers with subacute back pain, and 14 studies workers with chronic back pain.\nIn 14 studies, physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy was compared to usual care. The physical conditioning mostly consisted of graded activity with work-related exercises aimed at increasing back strength and flexibility, together with a set date for return to work. The programmes were divided into a light version with a maximum of five sessions, or an intense version with more than five sessions up to full time or as inpatient treatment.\nFor acute back pain, there was low quality evidence that both light and intense physical conditioning programmes made little or no difference in sickness absence duration compared with care as usual at three to 12 months follow-up (3 studies with 340 workers).\nFor subacute back pain, the evidence on the effectiveness of intense physical conditioning combined with care as usual compared to usual care alone was conflicting (four studies with 395 workers). However, subgroup analysis showed low quality evidence that if the intervention was executed at the workplace, or included a workplace visit, it may have reduced sickness absence duration at 12 months follow-up (3 studies with 283 workers; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.18).\nFor chronic back pain, there was low quality evidence that physical conditioning as part of integrated care management in addition to usual care may have reduced sickness absence days compared to usual care at 12 months follow-up (1 study, 134 workers; SMD -4.42, 95% CI -5.06 to -3.79). What part of the integrated care management was most effective remained unclear. There was moderate quality evidence that intense physical conditioning probably reduced sickness absence duration only slightly compared with usual care at 12 months follow-up (5 studies, 1093 workers; SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.03).\nPhysical conditioning compared to exercise therapy showed conflicting results for workers with subacute and chronic back pain. Cognitive behavioural therapy was probably not superior to physical conditioning as an alternative or in addition to physical conditioning.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effectiveness of physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy in reducing sick leave for workers with back pain, compared to usual care or exercise therapy, remains uncertain. For workers with acute back pain, physical conditioning may have no effect on sickness absence duration. There is conflicting evidence regarding the reduction of sickness absence duration with intense physical conditioning versus usual care for workers with subacute back pain. It may be that including workplace visits or execution of the intervention at the workplace is the component that renders a physical conditioning programme effective. For workers with chronic back pain physical conditioning has a small effect on reducing sick leave compared to care as usual after 12 months follow-up. To what extent physical conditioning as part of integrated care management may alter the effect on sick leave for workers with chronic back pain needs further research.\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 was current to March 2012. We analysed 17 comparisons of physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy. Some trials examined physical conditioning in addition to care as usual versus care as usual only, and others compared physical conditioning to other types of interventions such as standard exercise therapy. Participants had either acute back pain (duration of symptoms less than six weeks), subacute back pain (duration of symptoms more than six but less than 12 weeks), or chronic back pain (duration of symptoms more than 12 weeks). Participants were followed for anywhere from three weeks to three years. We divided physical conditioning into light or intense, depending on its intensity and duration." } ]
query-laysum	5918	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease (SCD), one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders, is caused by the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta-globin) genes. SCD can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Kidney disease is a frequent and potentially severe complication in people with SCD.\nChronic kidney disease (CKD) is defined as abnormalities of kidney structure or function present for more than three months. Sickle cell nephropathy refers to the spectrum of kidney complications in SCD.\nGlomerular damage is a cause of microalbuminuria and can develop at an early age in children with SCD, with increased prevalence in adulthood. In people with sickle cell nephropathy, outcomes are poor as a result of the progression to proteinuria and chronic kidney insufficiency. Up to 12% of people who develop sickle cell nephropathy will develop end-stage renal disease.\nThis is an update of a review first published in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of any intervention for preventing or reducing kidney complications or chronic kidney disease in people with sickle cell disease. Possible interventions include red blood cell transfusions, hydroxyurea, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), either alone or in combination.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for relevant trials in the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases, and two other trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions to prevent or reduce kidney complications or CKD in people with SCD. We applied no restrictions related to outcomes examined, language, or publication status.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE).\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs with 385 participants.\nWe rated the certainty of the evidence as low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology, downgrading for risk of bias concerns, indirectness, and imprecision.\nHydroxyurea versus placebo\nOne RCT published in 2011 compared hydroxyurea to placebo in 193 children aged nine to 18 months. We are unsure if hydroxyurea compared to placebo reduces or prevents progression of kidney disease assessed by change in glomerular filtration rate (mean difference (MD) 0.58 mL/min /1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval (CI) −14.60 to 15.76; 142 participants; very low certainty). Hydroxyurea compared to placebo may improve the ability to concentrate urine (MD 42.23 mOsm/kg, 95% CI 12.14 to 72.32; 178 participants; low certainty), and may make little or no difference to SCD-related serious adverse events, including acute chest syndrome (risk ratio (RR) 0.39, 99% CI 0.13 to 1.16; 193 participants; low certainty), painful crisis (RR 0.68, 99% CI 0.45 to 1.02; 193 participants; low certainty); and hospitalisations (RR 0.83, 99% CI 0.68 to 1.01; 193 participants; low certainty).\nNo deaths occurred in either trial arm and the RCT did not report quality of life.\nAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus placebo\nOne RCT published in 1998 compared an ACEI (captopril) to placebo in 22 adults with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria. We are unsure if captopril compared to placebo reduces proteinuria (MD −49.00 mg/day, 95% CI −124.10 to 26.10; 22 participants; very low certainty). We are unsure if captopril reduces or prevents kidney disease as measured by creatinine clearance; the trial authors stated that creatinine clearance remained constant over six months in both groups, but provided no comparative data (very low certainty).\nThe RCT did not report serious adverse events, all-cause mortality, or quality of life.\nAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus vitamin C\nOne RCT published in 2020 compared an ACEI (lisinopril) with vitamin C in 170 children aged one to 18 years with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria. It reported no data we could analyse. We are unsure if lisinopril compared to vitamin C reduces proteinuria in this population: the large drop in microalbuminuria in both arms of the trial after only one month on treatment may have been due to an overestimation of microalbuminuria at baseline rather than a true effect.\nThe RCT did not report serious adverse events, all-cause mortality, or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are unsure if hydroxyurea improves glomerular filtration rate or reduces hyperfiltration in children aged nine to 18 months, but it may improve their ability to concentrate urine and may make little or no difference to the incidence of acute chest syndrome, painful crises, and hospitalisations.\nWe are unsure if ACEI compared to placebo has any effect on preventing or reducing kidney complications in adults with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria.\nWe are unsure if ACEI compared to vitamin C has any effect on preventing or reducing kidney complications in children with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria.\nNo RCTs assessed red blood cell transfusions or any combined interventions to prevent or reduce kidney complications.\nDue to lack of evidence, we cannot comment on the management of children aged over 18 months or adults with any known genotype of SCD.\nWe have identified a lack of adequately designed and powered studies, although we found four ongoing trials since the last version of this review. Only one ongoing trial addresses renal function as a primary outcome in the short term, but such interventions have long-term effects. Trials of hydroxyurea, ACEIs or red blood cell transfusion in older children and adults are urgently needed to determine any effect on prevention or reduction of kidney complications in people with SCD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In children aged nine to 18 months, hydroxyurea may increase the ability to produce normal urine, but we are unsure if it has any effect on the glomerular filtration rate (network of filters in the kidney that filter waste from the blood). Hydroxyurea may make little or no difference to the occurrence of serious complications including acute chest syndrome (pain, cough, fever, low oxygen levels, and abnormal substances in the lungs), painful crises, and hospitalisations.\nWe are unsure if giving captopril to adults with SCD who have normal blood pressure and early signs of kidney damage (microalbuminuria) reduces progression of kidney damage.\nWe are unsure if giving lisinopril to children aged one to 18 years with SCD who have normal blood pressure and early signs of kidney damage (microalbuminuria) reduces progression of kidney damage.\nNo trials reported quality of life." } ]
query-laysum	5919	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEndometrial cancer is the sixth most common cancer in women worldwide and most commonly occurs after the menopause (75%) (globocan.iarc.fr). About 319,000 new cases were diagnosed worldwide in 2012. Endometrial cancer is commonly considered as a potentially 'curable cancer,' as approximately 75% of cases are diagnosed before disease has spread outside the uterus (FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage I). The overall five-year survival for all stages is about 86%, and, if the cancer is confined to the uterus, the five-year survival rate may increase to 97%. The majority of women diagnosed with endometrial cancer have early-stage disease, leading to a good prognosis after hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries (oophorectomy), with or without radiotherapy. However, women may have early physiological and psychological postmenopausal changes, either pre-existing or as a result of oophorectomy, depending on age and menopausal status at the time of diagnosis. Lack of oestrogen can cause hot flushes, night sweats, genital tract atrophy and longer-term adverse effects, such as osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. These changes may be temporarily managed by using oestrogens, in the form of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). However, there is a theoretical risk of promoting residual tumour cell growth and increasing cancer recurrence. Therefore, this is a potential survival disadvantage in a woman who has a potentially curable cancer. In premenopausal women with endometrial cancer, treatment induces early menopause and this may adversely affect overall survival. Additionally, most women with early-stage disease will be cured of their cancer, making longer-term quality of life (QoL) issues more pertinent. Following bilateral oophorectomy, premenopausal women may develop significant and debilitating menopausal symptoms, so there is a need for information about the risk and benefits of taking HRT, enabling women to make an informed decision, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of using HRT for their individual circumstances.\nObjectives\nTo assess the risks and benefits of HRT (oestrogen alone or oestrogen with progestogen) for women previously treated for endometrial cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to April, week 4, 2017) and Embase (1980 to 2017, week 18). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in all languages, that examined the efficacy of symptom relief and the safety of using HRT in women treated for endometrial cancer, where safety in this situation was considered as not increasing the risk of recurrence of endometrial cancer above that of women not taking HRT.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified 2190 unique records, evaluated the full text of seven studies and included one study with 1236 participants. This study reported tumour recurrence in 2.3% of women in the oestrogen arm versus 1.9% of women receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 2.50; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported one woman in the HRT arm (0.16%) and three women in the placebo arm (0.49%) who developed breast cancer (new malignancy) during follow-up (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.01; 1236 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on symptom relief, overall survival or progression-free survival for HRT versus placebo. However, they did report the percentage of women alive with no evidence of disease (94.3% in the HRT group and 95.6% in the placebo group) and the percentage of women alive irrespective of disease progression (95.8% in the HRT group and 96.9% in the placebo group) at the end of the 36 months' follow-up. The study did not report time to recurrence and it was underpowered due to closing early. The authors closed it as a result of the publication of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study, which, at that time, suggested that risks of exogenous hormone therapy outweighed benefits and had an impact on study recruitment. No assessment of efficacy was reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to inform women considering HRT after treatment for endometrial cancer. The available evidence (both the single RCT and non-randomised evidence) does not suggest significant harm, if HRT is used after surgical treatment for early-stage endometrial cancer. There is no information available regarding use of HRT in higher-stage endometrial cancer (FIGO stage II and above). The use of HRT after endometrial cancer treatment should be individualised, taking account of the woman's symptoms and preferences, and the uncertainty of evidence for and against HRT use.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The issue\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Endometrial cancer develops from the lining of the womb (uterus). It is the sixth most common cancer worldwide and mainly affects women around the time of or after the menopause (the final menstrual period). At an early stage, where the cancer has not spread outside of the womb, survival rates are excellent with a five-year survival of up to 97%. Treatment of endometrial cancer normally involves surgery to remove the womb, fallopian tubes (that connect the uterus to the ovaries) and ovaries (which produce eggs) (hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy). This may cause the onset of menopausal symptoms in women diagnosed prior to the menopause, or women may already be suffering from menopausal symptoms when they are diagnosed.\nHormone replacement therapy (HRT) is used to treat menopausal symptoms such as hot flushes, night sweats and vaginal dryness. In younger menopausal women, HRT may also help to maintain bone strength and prevent osteoporosis (weak bones). However, the safety of HRT after endometrial cancer is not known. Some types of endometrial cancer cells may be stimulated to grow by oestrogen, which is the main hormone in some types of HRT. Therefore, HRT has the potential to increase the growth of endometrial cancer cells left behind after treatment (due to microscopic undetected spread outside of the womb, fallopian tubes and ovaries), so promoting tumour recurrence (regrowth). Some doctors may not prescribe HRT after a diagnosis of endometrial cancer due to this theoretical risk. However, most women treated for early-stage endometrial cancer will not have any residual cancer cells following surgery. Menopausal symptoms can severely affect quality of life and early menopause can affect long-term health. HRT could potentially improve quality of life and long-term health, and women treated for endometrial cancer need to be able to balance the risks and benefits of HRT to decide about their treatment." } ]
query-laysum	5920	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHealthcare professionals are important contributors to healthcare quality and patient safety, but their performance does not always follow recommended clinical practice. There are many approaches to influencing practice among healthcare professionals. These approaches include audit and feedback, reminders, educational materials, educational outreach visits, educational meetings or conferences, use of local opinion leaders, financial incentives, and organisational interventions. In this review, we evaluated the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions. These interventions are aimed at changing the performance of healthcare professionals through interactions with patients, or through information provided by or to patients. Examples of patient-mediated interventions include 1) patient-reported health information, 2) patient information, 3) patient education, 4) patient feedback about clinical practice, 5) patient decision aids, 6) patients, or patient representatives, being members of a committee or board, and 7) patient-led training or education of healthcare professionals.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions on healthcare professionals' performance (adherence to clinical practice guidelines or recommendations for clinical practice).\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Ovid in March 2018, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in March 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) in September 2017, and OpenGrey, the Grey Literature Report and Google Scholar in October 2017. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and conducted cited reference searches for all included studies in October 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised studies comparing patient-mediated interventions to either usual care or other interventions to improve professional practice.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel statistics and the random-effects model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) using inverse variance statistics. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE).\nMain results\nWe included 25 studies with a total of 12,268 patients. The number of healthcare professionals included in the studies ranged from 12 to 167 where this was reported. The included studies evaluated four types of patient-mediated interventions: 1) patient-reported health information interventions (for instance information obtained from patients about patients' own health, concerns or needs before a clinical encounter), 2) patient information interventions (for instance, where patients are informed about, or reminded to attend recommended care), 3) patient education interventions (intended to increase patients' knowledge about their condition and options of care, for instance), and 4) patient decision aids (where the patient is provided with information about treatment options including risks and benefits). For each type of patient-mediated intervention a separate meta-analysis was produced.\nPatient-reported health information interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 26 (95% CI 23 to 30) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 17 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). We are uncertain about the effect of patient-reported health information interventions on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (very low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes and adverse events were not reported in the included studies and resource use was poorly reported.\nPatient information interventions may improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 42) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 20 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient information interventions may have little or no effect on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of patient information interventions on undesirable patient health outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.\nPatient education interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 46 (95% CI 39 to 54) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 35 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient education interventions may slightly increase the number of patients with desirable health outcomes (low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.\nPatient decision aid interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 43) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 37 per 100 in the comparison group (usual care). Patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that two types of patient-mediated interventions, patient-reported health information and patient education, probably improve professional practice by increasing healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We consider the effect to be small to moderate. Other patient-mediated interventions, such as patient information may also improve professional practice (low-certainty evidence). Patient decision aids may make little or no difference to the number of healthcare professionals' adhering to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence).\nThe impact of these interventions on patient health and satisfaction, adverse events and resource use, is more uncertain mostly due to very low certainty evidence or lack of evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key message\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review suggests that patients may change healthcare professionals’ practice though the following three strategies: 1) strategies where patients give healthcare professionals information about themselves; 2) strategies where patients are given healthcare information; and 3) strategies where patients take part in patient education. Patient decision aids may make little or no difference to healthcare professionals’ practice, however, the certainty is low, and these results should be interpreted carefully. We still need more research about the best ways in which patients can change professional practice and about the impact it has on patients’ health." } ]
query-laysum	5921	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMucopolysaccharidosis type I can be classified as three clinical sub-types; Hurler syndrome, Hurler-Scheie syndrome and Scheie syndrome, with the scale of severity being such that Hurler syndrome is the most severe and Scheie syndrome the least severe. It is a rare, autosomal recessive disorder caused by a deficiency of alpha-L-iduronidase. Deficiency of this enzyme results in the accumulation of glycosaminoglycans within the tissues. The clinical manifestations are facial dysmorphism, hepatosplenomegaly, upper airway obstruction, skeletal deformity and cardiomyopathy. If Hurler syndrome is left untreated, death ensues by adolescence. There are more attenuated variants termed Hurler-Scheie or Scheie syndrome, with those affected potentially not presenting until adulthood. Enzyme replacement therapy has been used for a number of years in the treatment of Hurler syndrome, although the current gold standard would be a haemopoietic stem cell transplant in those diagnosed by 2.5 years of age. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013 and previously updated in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treating mucopolysaccharidosis type I with laronidase enzyme replacement therapy as compared to placebo.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register, MEDLINE via OVID and Embase.\nDate of most recent search: 30 January 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies of laronidase enzyme replacement therapy compared to placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened the identified studies. The authors then appraised and extracted data. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nOne study (45 participants) met the inclusion criteria. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, multinational study looked at laronidase at a dose of 0.58 mg/kg/week versus placebo in people with mucopolysaccharidosis type I. All primary outcomes listed in this review were studied in this study. The laronidase group achieved statistically significant improvements in per cent predicted forced vital capacity compared to placebo, MD 5.60 (95% confidence intervals 1.24 to 9.96) (low-quality evidence) and in the six-minute-walk test (mean improvement of 38.1 metres in the laronidase group; P = 0.039, when using a prospectively planned analysis of covariance) (low-quality evidence). The levels of urinary glycoaminoglycans were also significantly reduced (low-quality evidence). In addition, there were improvements in hepatomegaly, sleep apnoea and hypopnoea. Laronidase antibodies were detected in nearly all participants in the treatment group with no apparent clinical effect and titres were reducing by the end of the study (very low-quality evidence). Infusion-related adverse reactions occurred in both groups but all were mild and none necessitated medical intervention or infusion cessation (low-quality evidence). As assessed by questionnaires,changes in a 'Disability Index' after treatment were small and did not differ between groups (low-quality evidence). There were no deaths in either group (low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence demonstrates that laronidase is effective when compared to placebo in the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis type I. The included study was comprehensive, with few participants and of low quality. The study included all of the key outcome measures we wished to look at. It demonstrated that laronidase is efficacious in relation to reducing biochemical parameters (reduced urine glycosaminoglycan excretion) and improved functional capacity as assessed by forced vital capacity and the six-minute-walk test. In addition glycosaminoglycan storage was reduced as ascertained by a reduction in liver volume. Laronidase appeared to be safe and, while antibodies were generated, these titres were reducing by the end of the study. More studies are required to determine long-term effectiveness and safety and to assess the impact upon quality of life. Enzyme replacement therapy with laronidase can be used pre- and peri-haemopoietic stem cell transplant, which is now the gold standard treatment in those individuals diagnosed under 2.5 years of age. We do not anticipate any further trials to be undertaken and therefore do not plan to update this review.\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": "Hurler syndrome or mucopolysaccharidosis type I is a rare genetic disorder that occurs when an enzyme that the body needs is missing or not working well enough. This leads to the build up of a number of complex molecules in certain cells and tissues. If untreated, this results in a classic picture of dwarfism, enlargement of body organs and a reduction in thinking ability. It occurs when a person inherits two copies of the defective gene (one from each parent) and is just as common in males as in females. It classically presents in infancy, however milder versions can present in adulthood. Enzyme replacement therapy with laronidase aims to replace the missing enzyme; however, given its high cost, it is essential to assess how effective and safe this treatment is." } ]
query-laysum	5922	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGingival recession is defined as the oral exposure of the root surface due to a displacement of the gingival margin apical to the cemento-enamel junction and it is regularly linked to the deterioration of dental aesthetics. Successful treatment of recession-type defects is based on the use of predictable root coverage periodontal plastic surgery (RCPPS) procedures. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of different root coverage procedures in the treatment of single and multiple recession-type defects.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 January 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (15 January 2018). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only of at least 6 months' duration evaluating recession areas (Miller's Class I or II ≥ 3 mm) and treated by means of RCPPS procedures.\nData collection and analysis\nScreening of eligible studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. We expressed results as random-effects models using mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the body of evidence of our main comparisons.\nMain results\nWe included 48 RCTs in the review. Of these, we assessed one as at low risk of bias, 12 as at high risk of bias and 35 as at unclear risk of bias. The results indicated a greater reduction in gingival recession for subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) + coronally advanced flap (CAF) compared to guided tissue regeneration with resorbable membranes (GTR rm) + CAF (MD -0.37 mm; 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13, P = 0.002; 3 studies; 98 participants; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference in gingival recession reduction between acellular dermal matrix grafts (ADMG) + CAF and SCTG + CAF or between enamel matrix protein (EMP) + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Regarding clinical attachment level changes, GTR rm + CAF promoted additional gains compared to SCTG + CAF (MD 0.35; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63, P = 0.02; 3 studies; 98 participants; low-quality evidence) but there was insufficient evidence of a difference between ADMG + CAF and SCTG + CAF or between EMP + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Greater gains in the keratinized tissue were found for SCTG + CAF when compared to EMP + CAF (MD -1.06 mm; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.76, P < 0.00001; 2 studies; 62 participants; low-quality evidence), and SCTG + CAF when compared to GTR rm + CAF (MD -1.77 mm; 95% CI -2.66 to -0.89, P < 0.0001; 3 studies; 98 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference in keratinized tissue gain between ADMG + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Few data exist on aesthetic condition change related to patients' opinion and patients' preference for a specific procedure.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSubepithelial connective tissue grafts, coronally advanced flap alone or associated with other biomaterial and guided tissue regeneration may be used as root coverage procedures for treating localised or multiple recession-type defects. The available evidence base indicates that in cases where both root coverage and gain in the width of keratinized tissue are expected, the use of subepithelial connective tissue grafts shows a slight improvement in outcome. There is also some weak evidence suggesting that acellular dermal matrix grafts appear as the soft tissue substitute that may provide the most similar outcomes to those achieved by subepithelial connective tissue grafts. RCTs are necessary to identify possible factors associated with the prognosis of each RCPPS procedure. The potential impact of bias on these outcomes is unclear.\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": "The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of different surgical procedures to cover exposed tooth roots, when the gum tissue has receded away from the tooth." } ]
query-laysum	5923	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis is a life-limiting autosomal recessive genetic illness. A feeling of shortness of breath is common in cystic fibrosis, especially as the disease progresses. Reversing the underlying cause is the priority when treating breathlessness (dyspnoea), but when it is not feasible, palliation (easing) becomes the primary goal to improve an individual's quality of life. A range of drugs administered by various routes have been used, but no definite guidelines are available. A systematic review is needed to evaluate such treatments.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of drugs used to ease breathlessness in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 18 November 2019.\nWe searched databases (clinicaltrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, the Clinical Trials Registry India and WHO ICTRP) for ongoing trials. These searches were last run on 06 March 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people with cystic fibrosis (diagnosed by a positive sweat chloride test or genetic testing) who have breathlessness. We considered studies comparing any drugs used for easing breathlessness to another drug administered by any route (inhaled (nebulised), intravenous, oral, subcutaneous, transmucosal (including buccal, sublingual and intra-nasal) and transdermal).\nData collection and analysis\nThe authors assessed the search results according to the pre-defined inclusion criteria.\nMain results\nThe new searches in 2020 yielded two ongoing studies that were not relevant to the review question. Previous searches had found only one study (cross-over in design), which did not fulfil the inclusion criteria as no data were available from the first treatment period alone.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the lack of available evidence, this review cannot provide any information for clinical practice. The authors call for specific research in this area after taking into account relevant ethical considerations. The research should focus on the efficacy and safety of the drugs with efficacy being measured in terms of improvement in quality of life, dyspnoea scores and hospital stay.\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 evidence that drug treatments for breathlessness (also known as dyspnoea) in people with cystic fibrosis are effective and safe?" } ]
query-laysum	5924	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCongenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is an autosomal recessive condition which leads to glucocorticoid deficiency and is the most common cause of adrenal insufficiency in children. In over 90% of cases, 21-hydroxylase enzyme deficiency is found which is caused by mutations in the 21-hydroxylase gene. Managing individuals with CAH due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency involves replacing glucocorticoids with oral glucocorticoids (including prednisolone and hydrocortisone), suppressing adrenocorticotrophic hormones and replacing mineralocorticoids to prevent salt wasting. During childhood, the main aims of treatment are to prevent adrenal crises and to achieve normal stature, optimal adult height and to undergo normal puberty. In adults, treatment aims to prevent adrenal crises, ensure normal fertility and to avoid the long-term consequences of glucocorticoid use. Current glucocorticoid treatment regimens can not optimally replicate the normal physiological cortisol level and over-treatment or under-treatment is often reported.\nObjectives\nTo compare and determine the efficacy and safety of different glucocorticoid replacement regimens in the treatment of CAH due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency in children and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP).\nDate of last search of trials register: 24 June 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing different glucocorticoid replacement regimens for treating CAH due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency in children and adults.\nData collection and analysis\nThe authors independently extracted and analysed the data from different interventions. They undertook the comparisons separately and used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nSearches identified 1729 records with 43 records subject to further examination. After screening, we included five RCTs (six references) with a total of 101 participants and identified a further six ongoing RCTs. The number of participants in each trial varied from six to 44, with participants' ages ranging from 3.6 months to 21 years. Four trials were of cross-over design and one was of parallel design. Duration of treatment ranged from two weeks to six months per treatment arm with an overall follow-up between six and 12 months for all trials. Overall, we judged the quality of the trials to be at moderate to high risk of bias; with lack of methodological detail leading to unclear or high risk of bias judgements across many of the domains.\nAll trials employed an oral glucocorticoid replacement therapy, but with different daily schedules and dose levels. Three trials compared different dose schedules of hydrocortisone (HC), one three-arm trial compared HC to prednisolone (PD) and dexamethasone (DXA) and one trial compared HC with fludrocortisone to PD with fludrocortisone. Due to the heterogeneity of the trials and the limited amount of evidence, we were unable to perform any meta-analyses.\nNo trials reported on quality of life, prevention of adrenal crisis, presence of osteopenia, presence of testicular or ovarian adrenal rest tumours, subfertility or final adult height.\nFive trials (101 participants) reported androgen normalisation but using different measurements (very low-quality evidence for all measurements). Five trials reported 17 hydroxyprogesterone (17 OHP) levels, four trials reported androstenedione, three trials reported testosterone and one trial reported dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEAS). After four weeks, results from one trial (15 participants) showed a high morning dose of HC or a high evening dose made little or no difference in 17 OHP, testosterone, androstenedione and DHEAS. One trial (27 participants) found that HC and DXA treatment suppressed 17 OHP and androstenedione more than PD treatment after six weeks and a further trial (eight participants) reported no difference in 17 OHP between the five different dosing schedules of HC at between four and six weeks. One trial (44 participants) comparing HC and PD found no differences in the values of 17 OHP, androstenedione and testosterone at one year. One trial (26 participants) of HC versus HC plus fludrocortisone found that at six months 17 OHP and androstenedione levels were more suppressed on HC alone, but there were no differences noted in testosterone levels.\nWhile no trials reported on absolute final adult height, we reported some surrogate markers. Three trials reported on growth and bone maturation and two trials reported on height velocity. One trial found height velocity was reduced at six months in 26 participants given once daily HC 25 mg/m²/day compared to once daily HC 15 mg/m²/day (both groups also received fludrocortisone 0.1 mg/day), but as the quality of the evidence was very low we are unsure whether the variation in HC dose caused the difference. There were no differences noted in growth hormone or IGF1 levels. The results from another trial (44 participants) indicate no difference in growth velocity between HC and PD at one year (very low-quality evidence), but this trial did report that once daily PD treatment may lead to better control of bone maturation compared to HC in prepubertal children and that the absolute change in bone age/chronological age ratio was higher in the HC group compared to the PD group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are currently limited trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different glucocorticoid replacement regimens for treating 21-hydroxylase deficiency CAH in children and adults and we were unable to draw any firm conclusions based on the evidence that was presented in the included trials.\nNo trials included long-term outcomes such as quality of life, prevention of adrenal crisis, presence of osteopenia, presence of testicular or ovarian adrenal rest tumours, subfertility and final adult height. There were no trials examining a modified-release formulation of HC or use of 24-hour circadian continuous subcutaneous infusion of hydrocortisone. As a consequence, uncertainty remains about the most effective form of glucocorticoid replacement therapy in CAH for children and adults.\nFuture trials should include both children and adults with CAH. A longer duration of follow-up is required to monitor biochemical and clinical outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There is not enough evidence to show which steroid replacement treatment schedule results in better outcomes or which is the most effective form of steroid replacement therapy in CAH for adults and children. Large, well-designed trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different steroid replacement therapies for treating 21-hydroxylase deficiency CAH in children and adults. A longer duration of follow-up is needed to monitor biochemical and clinical outcomes." } ]
query-laysum	5925	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\n18F-florbetaben uptake by brain tissue, measured by positron emission tomography (PET), is accepted by regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agencies (EMA) for assessing amyloid load in people with dementia. Its added value is mainly demonstrated by excluding Alzheimer's pathology in an established dementia diagnosis. However, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) revised the diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease and confidence in the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease may be increased when using some amyloid biomarkers tests like 18F-florbetaben. These tests, added to the MCI core clinical criteria, might increase the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of a testing strategy. However, the DTA of 18F-florbetaben to predict the progression from MCI to Alzheimer’s disease dementia (ADD) or other dementias has not yet been systematically evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo determine the DTA of the 18F-florbetaben PET scan for detecting people with MCI at time of performing the test who will clinically progress to ADD, other forms of dementia (non-ADD), or any form of dementia at follow-up.\nSearch methods\nThe most recent search for this review was performed in May 2017. We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), BIOSIS Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/). We also searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia & Cognitive Improvement Group’s specialised register of dementia studies (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/). We checked the reference lists of any relevant studies and systematic reviews, and performed citation tracking using the Science Citation Index to identify any additional relevant studies. No language or date restrictions were applied to electronic searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that had prospectively defined cohorts with any accepted definition of MCI at time of performing the test and the use of 18F-florbetaben scan to evaluate the DTA of the progression from MCI to ADD or other forms of dementia. In addition, we only selected studies that applied a reference standard for Alzheimer’s dementia diagnosis, for example, the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nWe screened all titles and abstracts identified in electronic-database searches. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data to create two-by-two tables, showing the binary test results cross-classified with the binary reference standard. We used these data to calculate sensitivities, specificities, and their 95% confidence intervals. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool plus some additional items to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.\nMain results\nProgression from MCI to ADD, any other form of dementia, and any form of dementia was evaluated in one study (Ong 2015). It reported data on 45 participants at four years of follow-up; 21 participants met NINCDS-ADRDA criteria for Alzheimer’s disease dementia at four years of follow-up, the proportion converting to ADD was 47% of the 45 participants, and 11% of the 45 participants met criteria for other types of dementias (three cases of FrontoTemporal Dementia (FTD), one of Dementia with Lewy body (DLB), and one of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP)). We considered the study to be at high risk of bias in the domains of the reference standard, flow, and timing (QUADAS-2).\nMCI to ADD; 18F-florbetaben PET scan analysed visually: the sensitivity was 100% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84% to 100%) and the specificity was 83% (95% CI 63% to 98%) (n = 45, 1 study). Analysed quantitatively: the sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 84% to 100%) and the specificity was 88% (95% CI 68% to 97%) for the diagnosis of ADD at follow-up (n = 45, 1 study).\nMCI to any other form of dementia (non-ADD);18F-florbetaben PET scan analysed visually: the sensitivity was 0% (95% CI 0% to 52%) and the specificity was 38% (95% CI 23% to 54%) (n = 45, 1 study). Analysed quantitatively: the sensitivity was 0% (95% CI 0% to 52%) and the specificity was 40% (95% CI 25% to 57%) for the diagnosis of any other form of dementia at follow-up (n = 45, 1 study).\nMCI to any form of dementia;18F-florbetaben PET scan analysed visually: the sensitivity was 81% (95% CI 61% to 93%) and the specificity was 79% (95% CI 54% to 94%) (n = 45, 1 study). Analysed quantitatively: the sensitivity was 81% (95% CI 61% to 93%) and the specificity was 84% (95% CI 60% to 97%) for the diagnosis of any form of dementia at follow-up (n = 45, 1 study).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough we were able to calculate one estimation of DTA in, especially, the prediction of progression from MCI to ADD at four years follow-up, the small number of participants implies imprecision of sensitivity and specificity estimates. We cannot make any recommendation regarding the routine use of 18F-florbetaben in clinical practice based on one single study with 45 participants. 18F-florbetaben has high financial costs, therefore, clearly demonstrating its DTA and standardising the process of the 18F-florbetaben modality are important prior to its wider use.\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": "Due to global ageing, the number of people with dementia is expected to increase dramatically in the next few decades. Diagnosing dementia at an early stage is desirable, but there is no widespread agreement on the best approach. A range of simple pen and paper tests used by healthcare professionals can assess people with poor memory or cognitive impairment. Whether or not using special PET scans that detect amyloid —one of the hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease— improves our ability to predict the progression from MCI to ADD or other forms of dementia remains unclear. Since these tests are expensive, it is important that they provide additional benefits." } ]
query-laysum	5926	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nApproximately 2.5% of all hospitalisations in people with cirrhosis are for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). Antibiotics, in addition to supportive treatment (fluid and electrolyte balance, treatment of shock), form the mainstay treatments of SBP. Various antibiotics are available for the treatment of SBP, but there is uncertainty regarding the best antibiotic for SBP.\nObjectives\nTo compare the benefits and harms of different antibiotic treatments for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until November 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on people with cirrhosis and SBP.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and SBP. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of SBP, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available-case analysis, according to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit guidance.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 12 trials (1278 participants; 13 antibiotics) in the review. Ten trials (893 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included patients having cirrhosis with or without other features of decompensation of varied aetiologies. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one week to three months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Only one trial was included under each comparison for most of the outcomes. Because of these reasons, there is very low certainty in all the results. The majority of the randomised clinical trials used third-generation cephalosporins, such as intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, or ciprofloxacin as one of the interventions.\nOverall, approximately 75% of trial participants recovered from SBP and 25% of people died within three months. There was no evidence of difference in any of the outcomes for which network meta-analysis was possible: mortality (9 trials; 653 participants), proportion of people with any adverse events (5 trials; 297 participants), resolution of SBP (as per standard definition, 9 trials; 873 participants), or other features of decompensation (6 trials; 535 participants). The effect estimates in the direct comparisons (when available) were very similar to those of network meta-analysis. For the comparisons where network meta-analysis was not possible, there was no evidence of difference in any of the outcomes (proportion of participants with serious adverse events, number of adverse events, and proportion of participants requiring liver transplantation). Due to the wide CrIs and the very low-certainty evidence for all the outcomes, significant benefits or harms of antibiotics are possible.\nNone of the trials reported health-related quality of life, number of serious adverse events, or symptomatic recovery from SBP.\nFunding: the source of funding for two trials were industrial organisations who would benefit from the results of the trial; the source of funding for the remaining 10 trials was unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nShort-term mortality after SBP is about 25%. There is significant uncertainty about which antibiotic therapy is better in people with SBP.\nWe need adequately powered randomised clinical trials, with adequate blinding, avoiding post-randomisation dropouts (or performing intention-to-treat analysis), and using clinically important outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What were the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The 12 studies included a small number of participants (1278 participants). The study data were sparse; 10 studies with 893 participants provided data for analyses. Follow-up in the trials ranged from one week to three months. The review shows the following.\n- Out of the 13 different antibiotics compared in the trials, ceftriaxone and cefotaxime administered into the vein, were most commonly used.\n- The type of antibiotic provided may make no difference to the number or percentage of people with serious complications or with any complications; number of (any) complications per person; percentage of people undergoing liver transplantation; or who recovered from spontaneous bacterial peritonitis as per laboratory tests, or other complications of liver cirrhosis.\n- Twenty-five out of every 100 people died within three months, and 75 out of every 100 people recovered from spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.\n- None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, number of serious adverse events, or symptomatic recovery from spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.\n- We have very low confidence in the overall results. Whether some antibiotics may cause important or less important benefits or harms compared to others when given to people with advanced liver disease and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is questionable.\n- We need data from trials of proper design and quality in order to be able to clarify the best antibiotic for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis." } ]
query-laysum	5927	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) is a leading cause of mortality and long-term neurological sequelae, affecting thousands of children worldwide. Current therapies to treat HIE are limited to cooling. Stem cell-based therapies offer a potential therapeutic approach to repair or regenerate injured brain tissue. These preclinical findings have now culminated in ongoing human neonatal trials.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of stem cell-based interventions for the treatment of hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) in newborn infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 8 June 2020), Embase (1980 to 8 June 2020), and CINAHL (1982 to 8 June 2020). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster trials comparing 1) stem cell-based interventions (any type) compared to control (placebo or no treatment); 2) use of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) of type (e.g. number of doses or passages) or source (e.g. autologous versus allogeneic, or bone marrow versus cord) versus MSCs of other type or source; 3) use of stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs of type (e.g. mononuclear cells, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, neural stem cells, hematopoietic stem cells, and inducible pluripotent stem cells) or source (e.g. autologous versus allogeneic, or bone marrow versus cord) versus stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs of other type or source; or 4) MSCs versus stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs.\nData collection and analysis\nFor each of the included trials, two authors independently planned to extract data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, type and source of MSCs or other stem cell-based interventions) and assess the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review are all-cause neonatal mortality, major neurodevelopmental disability, death or major neurodevelopmental disability assessed at 18 to 24 months of age. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nOur search strategy yielded 616 references. Two review authors independently assessed all references for inclusion. We did not find any completed studies for inclusion. Fifteen RCTs are currently registered and ongoing. We describe the three studies we excluded.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no evidence from randomised trials that assesses the benefit or harms of stem cell-based interventions for the prevention of morbidity and mortality following hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy in newborn infants.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We were not able to include any studies in our review. We identified three potential studies, but we excluded them due to the way they were designed which meant that their results could not answer our review question (phase 1 studies). Fifteen studies are ongoing." } ]
query-laysum	5928	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchiolitis is an acute, viral lower respiratory tract infection affecting infants and is sometimes treated with bronchodilators.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bronchodilators on clinical outcomes in infants (0 to 12 months) with acute bronchiolitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 12, MEDLINE (1966 to January Week 2, 2014) and EMBASE (1998 to January 2014).\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bronchodilators (other than epinephrine) with placebo for bronchiolitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. We obtained unpublished data from trial authors.\nMain results\nWe included 30 trials (35 data sets) representing 1992 infants with bronchiolitis. In 11 inpatient and 10 outpatient studies, oxygen saturation did not improve with bronchodilators (mean difference (MD) -0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 0.06, n = 1242). Outpatient bronchodilator treatment did not reduce the rate of hospitalization (11.9% in bronchodilator group versus 15.9% in placebo group, odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21, n = 710). Inpatient bronchodilator treatment did not reduce the duration of hospitalization (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39, n = 349).\nEffect estimates for inpatients (MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.16) were slightly larger than for outpatients (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.11) for oximetry. Oximetry outcomes showed significant heterogeneity (I2 statistic = 81%). Including only studies with low risk of bias had little impact on the overall effect size of oximetry (MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.00) but results were close to statistical significance.\nIn eight inpatient studies, there was no change in average clinical score (standardized MD (SMD) -0.14, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.12) with bronchodilators. In nine outpatient studies, the average clinical score decreased slightly with bronchodilators (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.06), a statistically significant finding of questionable clinical importance. The clinical score outcome showed significant heterogeneity (I2 statistic = 73%). Including only studies with low risk of bias reduced the heterogeneity but had little impact on the overall effect size of average clinical score (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03).\nSub-analyses limited to nebulized albuterol or salbutamol among outpatients (nine studies) showed no effect on oxygen saturation (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.21, n = 572), average clinical score (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.11, n = 532) or hospital admission after treatment (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.33, n = 404).\nAdverse effects included tachycardia, oxygen desaturation and tremors.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBronchodilators such as albuterol or salbutamol do not improve oxygen saturation, do not reduce hospital admission after outpatient treatment, do not shorten the duration of hospitalization and do not reduce the time to resolution of illness at home. Given the adverse side effects and the expense associated with these treatments, bronchodilators are not effective in the routine management of bronchiolitis. This meta-analysis continues to be limited by the small sample sizes and the lack of standardized study design and validated outcomes across the studies. Future trials with large sample sizes, standardized methodology across clinical sites and consistent assessment methods are needed to answer completely the question of efficacy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why review bronchodilators?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Bronchodilators are drugs often used as aerosols to widen the air passages by relaxing the bronchial muscle. They are effective in helping older children and adults with asthma. However, unlike asthmatics, infants with bronchiolitis are usually wheezing for the first time. They are wheezing for a different reason, that is to say, because their airways are clogged with debris. Therefore, infants with bronchiolitis are less likely to respond to bronchodilators." } ]
query-laysum	5929	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is a malignant cancer of hematopoietic stem cells. The treatment of AML consists of two treatment phases: the remission induction phase to achieve a rapid, complete remission (CR) and the consolidation phase to achieve a durable molecular remission. People in CR are at risk of AML relapse, and people with relapsed AML have poor survival prospects. Thus, there is a continuous need for treatments to further improve prognosis. Interleukin-2 (IL-2), an immune-stimulatory cytokine, is an alternative to standard treatment for people with AML to maintain the efficacy after consolidation therapy. Maintenance therapy is not an integral part of the standard treatment for AML. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of IL-2 as maintenance therapy for people with AML in first CR, but the effect of IL-2 is not yet fully established.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL-2 as maintenance therapy for children and adults with AML who have achieved first CR and have not relapsed.\nSearch methods\nWe systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2015), EMBASE (1950 to August 2015), LILACS (1982 to August 2015), CBM (1978 to August 2015), relevant conference proceedings (2000 to 2015), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (since inception to August 2015) of ongoing and unpublished trials. In addition, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IL-2 with no treatment in people with AML who had achieved first CR and had not relapsed. We did not identify studies comparing IL-2 versus best supportive care or maintenance chemotherapy or studies comparing IL-2 plus maintenance chemotherapy versus maintenance chemotherapy alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies, extracted data with a predefined extraction form, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We extracted data on the following outcomes: disease-free survival, overall survival, event-free survival, treatment-related mortality, adverse events, and quality of life. We measured the treatment effect on time-to-event outcomes and dichotomous outcomes with hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio, respectively. We used inverse-variance method to combine HRs with fixed-effect model unless there was significant between-study heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs with a total of 1665 participants, comparing IL-2 with no treatment. Six studies included adult participants, and three studies included both adults and children. However, the latter three studies did not report data for children, thus we were unable to conduct subgroup analysis of children. One Chinese study did not report any outcomes of interest for this review. We included six trials involving 1426 participants in the meta-analysis on disease-free survival, and included five trials involving 1355 participants in the meta-analysis on overall survival. There is no evidence for difference between IL-2 group and no-treatment group regarding disease-free survival (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06, P = 0.37; quality of evidence: low) or overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16, P = 0.35; quality of evidence: moderate). Based on one trial of 161 participants, IL-2 exerted no effect on event-free survival (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32, P = 0.88; quality of evidence: low). Adverse events (including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, malaise/fatigue, and infection/fever) were more frequent in participants receiving IL-2, according to one trial of 308 participants. No mortality due to adverse events was reported. None of the included studies reported treatment-related mortality or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence for a difference between IL-2 maintenance therapy and no treatment with respect to disease-free survival or overall survival of people with AML in first CR; however, the quality of the evidence is moderate or low, and further research is likely or very likely to have an important impact on the estimate or our confidence in the estimate. Adverse events seem to be more frequent in participants treated with IL-2, but the quality of the evidence is very low and our confidence in the estimates is very uncertain. Thus, further prospective randomised trials are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn on these issues.\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 analysed the data with respect to the effect of IL-2 on disease-free survival (the time interval from the date of remission to leukaemic relapse or death from any cause) and overall survival (the time between when participants entered the study and when they died) compared with no treatment. We found no evidence for difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between the IL-2 group and the control group. Another outcome we considered was event-free survival (the time interval from the date of randomisation or entry into study to treatment failure, first relapse, or death from any cause), and found that IL-2 did not extend the event-free survival. None of the included studies analysed treatment-related mortality or quality of life. We also looked at whether IL-2 treatment resulted in any adverse events. We found that very low quality evidence that adverse events were more common in participants receiving IL-2 than in those receiving no treatment. Reported adverse events included reduction in blood platelet count or neutrocyte count, malaise, fatigue, fever, and infection. No death related to adverse effect was reported." } ]
query-laysum	5930	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a life-long condition for which currently there is no cure. Patient educational interventions deliver structured information to their recipients. Evidence suggests patient education can have positive effects in other chronic diseases.\nObjectives\nTo identify the different types of educational interventions, how they are delivered, and to determine their effectiveness and safety in people with IBD.\nSearch methods\nOn 27 November 2022, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations to language, date, document type, or publication status. Any type of formal or informal educational intervention, lasting for any time, that had content focused directly on knowledge about IBD or skills needed for direct management of IBD or its symptoms was included. Delivery methods included face-to-face or remote educational sessions, workshops, guided study via the use of printed or online materials, the use of mobile applications, or any other method that delivers information to patients.\nSelection criteria\nAll published, unpublished and ongoing randomised control trials (RCTs) that compare educational interventions targeted at people with IBD to any other type of intervention or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager Web. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies with a total of 2708 randomised participants, aged 11 to 75 years. Two studies examined populations who all had ulcerative colitis (UC); the remaining studies examined a mix of IBD patients (UC and Crohn's disease). Studies considered a range of disease activity states. The length of the interventions ranged from 30 minutes to 12 months. Education was provided in the form of in-person workshops/lectures, and remotely via printed materials or multimedia, smartphones and internet learning.\nThirteen studies compared patient education interventions plus standard care against standard care alone. The interventions included seminars, information booklets, text messages, e-learning, a multi professional group-based programme, guidebooks, a staff-delivered programme based on an illustrated book, a standardised programme followed by group session, lectures alternating with group therapy, educational sessions based on an IBD guidebook, internet blog access and text messages, a structured education programme, and interactive videos.\nRisk of bias findings were concerning in all judgement areas across all studies. No single study was free of unclear or high of bias judgements.\nReporting of most outcomes in a homogeneous fashion was limited, with quality of life at study end reported most commonly in six of the 14 studies which allowed for meta-analysis, with all other outcomes reported in a more heterogeneous manner that limited wider analysis. Two studies provided data on disease activity. There was no clear difference in disease activity when patient education (n = 277) combined with standard care was compared to standard care (n = 202). Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in reducing disease activity in patients with IBD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20), moderate-certainty evidence.\nTwo studies provided continuous data on flare-up/relapse. There was no clear difference for flare-ups or relapse when patient education (n = 515) combined with standard care was compared to standard care (n = 507), as a continuous outcome. Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in reducing flare-ups or relapse in patients with IBD (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThree studies provided dichotomous data on flare-up/relapse. The evidence is very uncertain on whether patient education combined with standard care (n = 157) is different to standard care (n = 150) in reducing flare-ups or relapse in patients with IBD (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.18; very low-certainty evidence).\nSix studies provided data on quality of life. There was no clear difference in quality of life when patient education combined with standard care (n = 721) was compared to standard care (n = 643). Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in improving quality of life in patients with IBD (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.18; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe included studies did not report major differences on healthcare access. Medication adherence, patient knowledge and change in quality of life showed conflicting results that varied between no major differences and differences in favour of the educational interventions.\nOnly five studies reported on adverse events. Four reported zero total adverse events and one reported one case of breast cancer and two cases of surgery in their interventions groups, and zero adverse events in their control group.\nTwo studies compared delivery methods of patient education, specifically: web-based patient education interventions versus colour-printed books or text messages; and one study compared frequency of patient education, specifically: weekly educational text messages versus once every other week educational text messages. These did not show major differences for disease activity and quality of life.\nOther outcomes were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe ways in which patient educational support surrounding IBD may impact on disease outcomes is complex.\nThere is evidence that education added to standard care is probably of no benefit to disease activity or quality of life when compared with standard care, and may be of no benefit for occurrence of relapse when compared with standard care. However, as there was a paucity of specific information regarding the components of education or standard care, the utility of these findings is questionable.\nFurther research on the impact of education on our primary outcomes of disease activity, flare-ups/relapse and quality of life is probably not indicated. However, further research is necessary, which should focus on reporting details of the educational interventions and study outcomes that educational interventions could be directly targeted to address, such as healthcare access and medication adherence. These should be informed by direct engagement with stakeholders and people affected by Crohn's and colitis.\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": "It is likely that patient education programmes have no additional benefits when compared to usual medications and care for:\n• improving inflammatory bowel disease (IBD);\n• avoiding relapses and flare-ups of the disease; or\n• improving quality of life for patients with IBD." } ]
query-laysum	5931	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCrowns for primary molars are preformed and come in a variety of sizes and materials to be placed over decayed or developmentally defective teeth. They can be made completely of stainless steel (know as 'preformed metal crowns' or PMCs), or to give better aesthetics, may be made of stainless steel with a white veneer cover or made wholly of a white ceramic material. In most cases, teeth are trimmed for the crowns to be fitted conventionally using a local anaesthetic. However, in the case of the Hall Technique, PMCs are pushed over the tooth with no local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal or tooth preparation. Crowns are recommended for restoring primary molar teeth that have had a pulp treatment, are very decayed or are badly broken down. However, few dental practitioners use them in clinical practice. This review updates the original review published in 2007.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of all types of preformed crowns for restoring primary teeth compared with conventional filling materials (such as amalgam, composite, glass ionomer, resin modified glass ionomer and compomers), other types of crowns or methods of crown placement, non-restorative caries treatment or no treatment.\nSecondary objective\nTo explore whether the extent of decay has an effect on the clinical outcome of primary teeth restored with all types of preformed crowns compared with those restored with conventional filling materials.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials and Open Grey for grey literature (to 21 January 2015). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of crowns compared with fillings, other types of crowns, non-restorative approaches or no treatment in children with untreated tooth decay in one or more primary molar teeth. We would also have included trials comparing different methods of fitting crowns.\nFor trials to be considered for this review, the success or failure of the interventions and other clinical outcomes had to be reported at least six months after intervention (with the exception of 'pain/discomfort during treatment and immediately postoperatively').\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the title and abstracts for each article from the search results. and independently assessed the full text for each potentially relevant study. At least two authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data using a piloted data extraction form.\nMain results\nWe included five studies that evaluated three comparisons. Four studies compared crowns with fillings; two of them compared conventional PMCs with open sandwich restorations, and two compared PMCs fitted using the Hall Technique with fillings. One of these studies included a third arm, which allowed the comparison of PMCs (fitted using the Hall Technique) versus non-restorative caries treatment. In the two studies using crowns fitted using the conventional method, all teeth had undergone pulpotomy prior to the crown being placed. The final study compared two different types of crowns: PMCs versus aesthetic stainless steel crowns with white veneers. No RCT evidence was found that compared different methods of fitting preformed metal crowns (i.e. Hall Technique versus conventional technique).\nWe considered outcomes reported at the dental appointment or within 24 hours of it, and in the short term (less than 12 months) or long term (12 months or more). Some of our outcomes of interest were not measured in the studies: time to restoration failure or retreatment, patient satisfaction and costs.\nCrowns versus fillings\nAll studies in this comparison used PMCs. One study reported outcomes in the short term and found no reports of major failure or pain in either group. There was moderate quality evidence that the risk of major failure was lower in the crowns group in the long term (risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.56; 346 teeth in three studies, one conventional and two using Hall Technique). Similarly, there was moderate quality evidence that the risk of pain was lower in the long term for the crown group (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.67; 312 teeth in two studies).\nDiscomfort associated with the procedure was lower for crowns fitted using the Hall Technique than for fillings (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 381 teeth) (moderate quality evidence).\nIt is uncertain whether there is a clinically important difference in the risk of gingival bleeding when using crowns rather than fillings, either in the short term (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.66; 226 teeth) or long term (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.06; 195 teeth, two studies using PMCs with conventional technique at 12 months) (low quality evidence).\nCrowns versus non-restorative caries treatment\nOnly one study compared PMCs (fitted with the Hall Technique) with non-restorative caries treatment; the evidence quality was very low and we are therefore we are uncertain about the estimates.\nMetal crowns versus aesthetic crowns\nOne split-mouth study (11 participants) compared PMCs versus aesthetic crowns (stainless steel with white veneers). It provided very low quality evidence so no conclusions could be drawn.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCrowns placed on primary molar teeth with carious lesions, or following pulp treatment, are likely to reduce the risk of major failure or pain in the long term compared to fillings. Crowns fitted using the Hall Technique may reduce discomfort at the time of treatment compared to fillings. The amount and quality of evidence for crowns compared to non-restorative caries, and for metal compared with aesthetic crowns, is very low. There are no RCTs comparing crowns fitted conventionally versus using the Hall Technique.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched medical and dental sources for studies up to 21 January 2015. We identified five relevant studies. They were at high risk of bias because the participants knew which treatment they received and so did the people who treated them.\nFour studies compared crowns with fillings. Two of them compared metal crowns fitted using the conventional method with fillings and two compared metal crowns fitted using the Hall Technique with fillings. One of the studies also compared the Hall Technique with 'non-restorative caries treatment' (not using either a filling or crown but opening the cavity to make it possible to clean with a toothbrush, sealing with fluoride varnish and encouraging toothbrushing). The final study compared crowns made of two different materials (stainless steel versus stainless steel with a white covering). We looked at what happened for each treatment at the time of the dental appointment or within 24 hours of treatment, in the short term (less than 12 months) and long term (12 months to 48 months)." } ]
query-laysum	5932	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCrohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that can involve any part of the gastrointestinal tract. 5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) are locally acting, anti-inflammatory compounds that reduce inflammation of the colonic mucosa with release profiles that vary among various commercially available formulations. This updated Cochrane review summarizes current evidence on the use of 5-ASA formulations for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA agents for the maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 16 July 2018. We also searched references, conference abstracts, and trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with CD in remission following surgery and compared 5-ASAs to no treatment, placebo or any other active intervention with duration of at least three months were considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic recurrence, radiologic and surgical relapse, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events.\nMain results\nFourteen RCTs (1867 participants) were included in the review. Participants (15 to 70 years) were recruited from gastroenterology hospitals and medical clinics in Europe and North America and followed up between 3 and 72 months. The risk of bias was assessed as 'low' in one study, 'unclear' in seven and as 'high' in six.\nAt 12 months, 36% (20/55) of participants in the 5-ASA group experienced clinical relapse compared to 51% (28/55) in the no treatment control group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10; low certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence suggests that 5-ASAs are more effective for preventing clinical relapse than placebo. During a follow-up period of 12 to 72 months, 36% (131/361) of 5-ASA participants relapsed compared to 43% (160/369) of placebo participants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). At 12 months, 17% (17/101) of the 4 g/day mesalamine group relapsed compared to 26% (27/105) of the 2.4 g/day group (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.13; moderate certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in clinical relapse rates when 5-ASA compounds were compared to purine antimetabolites. At 24 months, 61% (103/170) of mesalamine participants relapsed compared to 67% (119/177) of azathioprine participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; I² = 28%; low certainty evidence). During 24 months, 50% (9/18) of 5-ASA participants had clinical relapse compared to 13% (2/16) of adalimumab participants (RR 4.0, 95% CI 1.01 to 15.84; low certainty evidence). The effects of sulphasalazine compared to placebo on clinical relapse rate is uncertain. After 18 to 36 months, 66% (95/143) of participants treated with sulphasalazine relapsed compared to 71% (110/155) in the placebo group (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; I² = 38%; low certainty evidence).\nThe effect of 5-ASA drugs on safety was uncertain. During 24 months follow-up, 4% (2/55) of 5-ASA participants experienced adverse events compared to none (0/55) in the no treatment control group (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 101.81; very low certainty evidence). An equal proportion of 5-ASA participants (10%; 23/241) and placebo (9%; 20/225) groups experienced an adverse event during a follow-up of 3 to 72 months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.91; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Adverse event rates were similar in the 5-ASA and purine analogues groups. However, serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in participants who received purine analogues than 5-ASA. At 52 weeks to 24 months, 52% (107/207) of 5-ASA participants had an adverse event compared to 47% (102/218) of purine analogue participants (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Four per cent (6/152) of 5-ASA participants had a serious adverse event compared to 17% (27/159) of purine analogue participants (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80; very low certainty evidence). Eight per cent (17/207) of 5-ASA participants withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 19% (42/218) of purine analogue participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83; low certainty evidence). Adverse event rates were similar in high and low dose mesalamine participants. After 12 months, 2% (2/101) of 4 g/day mesalamine participants had an adverse event compared to 2% (2/105) of 2.4 g/day participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.24; low certainty evidence). The proportion of participants who experienced adverse events over a 24 month follow-up in the mesalamine group was 78% (14/18) compared to 69% (11/16) of adalimumab participants (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.71; very low certainty evidence). None (0/32) of the sulphasalazine participants had an adverse event at 18 months follow-up compared to 3% (1/34) of the placebo group (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.38; very low certainty evidence). Commonly reported adverse events in the included studies were diarrhoea, nausea, increased liver function tests, pancreatitis, and abdominal pain.\nAuthors' conclusions\n5-ASA preparations are superior to placebo for the maintenance of surgically-induced clinical remission in patients with CD (moderate certainty). The number needed to treat to prevent one relapse was 13 patients. The evidence for endoscopic remission is uncertain. The sulphasalazine class of 5-ASA agents failed to demonstrate superiority against placebo, 5-ASAs failed to demonstrate superiority compared to no treatment (very low and low certainty). The efficacy of two different doses of the same 5-ASA and the efficacy of 5-ASA compared to purine antimetabolites (azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine) in maintaining surgically-induced remission of CD remains unclear. However, purine analogues lead to more serious adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events. There is a low certainty that 5-ASA is inferior for maintaining surgically-induced remission of CD compared to biologics (anti TNF-ɑ). 5-ASA formulations appear to be safe with no difference in the occurrence of adverse events or withdrawal when compared with placebo, no treatment or biologics.\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 review was to understand the effectiveness and safety of 5-ASA drugs for maintaining remission following surgery in people with Crohn disease. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review." } ]
query-laysum	5933	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMultiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS), which can occur in many parts of the CNS and result in a wide range of symptoms including sensory impairment, fatigue, walking or balance problems, visual impairment, vertigo and cognitive disabilities. At present, the most commonly used MS treatments are immunomodulating agents, but they have little effect on the disability. Experimental studies show that sodium (Na+) accumulation leads to intracellular calcium (Ca2+) release, and the increased calcium levels can activate nitric oxide synthase and harmful proteases and lipases. These factors contribute to axonal injury in people with MS. If partial blockade of voltage-gated sodium channels could result in neuroprotection, this would be of benefit for preventing disability progression in these people. Neuroprotection is emerging as a potentially important strategy for preventing disability progression in people with MS.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of sodium channel blockers for neuroprotection in people with MS to prevent the occurrence of disability and alleviate the burden of the disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (27 August 2015) which, among other sources, contains references from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue (8), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2015), EMBASE (1974 to August 2015), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1981 to August 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (1982 to August 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Portal (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch). In addition, we searched four Chinese databases, ongoing trials registers and relevant reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined sodium channel blockers used alone or as an add-on to any approved treatments for MS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted the data.\nMain results\nOnly one study evaluating lamotrigine in secondary progressive MS was eligible. One hundred and twenty people were included, 61 randomly assigned to lamotrigine treatment and 59 to placebo treatment. The average age of participants in the two groups was 51.9 years and 50.1 years, respectively. The proportion of male participants was 27.5%. The period of follow-up was 2 years. No data were found on disability progression and people who experienced relapses. No significant differences were found for serious adverse events between the two groups. Treatment with lamotrigine was associated with more rashes (20% vs 5%, P value 0.03) and transient, dose-related deterioration of mobility (66% vs 34%, P value 0.001) than placebo. Furthermore, no significant difference between the two groups was found in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements of cerebral atrophy, Expanded Disability Status Score changes, Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite score changes. This study was judged to be at high risk of bias. This review will be updated when the three ongoing studies we identified are completed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe quality of evidence was judged to be very low due to the low number of available studies and included participants. There is a lack of evidence to address the review question on the efficacy of sodium channel blockers for people with MS. Assessment of the three ongoing trials might change this conclusion. Further high-quality large scale studies are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found only one study including a total of 120 participants. No data were found on disability progression and people who experienced relapses. No significant difference between two groups was found in measurements of cerebral atrophy, expanded disability score changes, or MS functional composite score changes. Treatment with lamotrigine was associated with more rashes (20% versus 5%) and transient, dose-related deterioration of mobility. There is a lack of evidence to address the review question on the efficacy of sodium channel blockers for people with MS. This review will be updated when the three ongoing studies we identified are completed." } ]
query-laysum	5935	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIntermittent claudication (IC) is the classic symptomatic form of peripheral arterial disease affecting an estimated 4.5% of the general population aged 40 years and older. Patients with IC experience limitations in their ambulatory function resulting in functional disability and impaired quality of life (QoL). Endovascular revascularisation has been proposed as an effective treatment for patients with IC and is increasingly performed.\nObjectives\nThe main objective of this systematic review is to summarise the (added) effects of endovascular revascularisation on functional performance and QoL in the management of IC.\nSearch methods\nFor this review the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (February 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1). The CIS also searched trials registries for details of ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing endovascular revascularisation (± conservative therapy consisting of supervised exercise or pharmacotherapy) versus no therapy (except advice to exercise) or versus conservative therapy (i.e. supervised exercise or pharmacotherapy) for IC.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of studies. Given large variation in the intensity of treadmill protocols to assess walking distances and use of different instruments to assess QoL, we used standardised mean difference (SMD) as treatment effect for continuous outcome measures to allow standardisation of results and calculated the pooled SMD as treatment effect size in meta-analyses. We interpreted pooled SMDs using rules of thumb (< 0.40 = small, 0.40 to 0.70 = moderate, > 0.70 = large effect) according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated the pooled treatment effect size for dichotomous outcome measures as odds ratio (OR).\nMain results\nWe identified ten RCTs (1087 participants) assessing the value of endovascular revascularisation in the management of IC. These RCTs compared endovascular revascularisation versus no specific treatment for IC or conservative therapy or a combination therapy of endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy versus conservative therapy alone. In the included studies, conservative treatment consisted of supervised exercise or pharmacotherapy with cilostazol 100 mg twice daily. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to high and was downgraded mainly owing to substantial heterogeneity and small sample size.\nComparing endovascular revascularisation versus no specific treatment for IC (except advice to exercise) showed a moderate effect on maximum walking distance (MWD) (SMD 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.08; 3 studies; 125 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and a large effect on pain-free walking distance (PFWD) (SMD 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.68; 3 studies; 125 participants; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of endovascular revascularisation. Long-term follow-up in two studies (103 participants) showed no clear differences between groups for MWD (SMD 0.67, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.63; low-quality evidence) and PFWD (SMD 0.69, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.82; low-quality evidence). The number of secondary invasive interventions (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.28; 2 studies; 118 participants; moderate-quality evidence) was also not different between groups. One study reported no differences in disease-specific QoL after two years.\nData from five studies (n = 345) comparing endovascular revascularisation versus supervised exercise showed no clear differences between groups for MWD (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.04; moderate-quality evidence) and PFWD (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.29; moderate-quality evidence). Similarliy, long-term follow-up in three studies (184 participants) revealed no differences between groups for MWD (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.32; moderate-quality evidence) and PFWD (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.48; moderate-quality evidence). In addition, high-quality evidence showed no difference between groups in the number of secondary invasive interventions (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.80; 4 studies; 395 participants) and in disease-specific QoL (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.41; 3 studies; 301 participants).\nComparing endovascular revascularisation plus supervised exercise versus supervised exercise alone showed no clear differences between groups for MWD (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.64; 3 studies; 432 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and PFWD (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.93; 2 studies; 305 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Long-term follow-up in one study (106 participants) revealed a large effect on MWD (SMD 1.18, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.70; low-quality evidence) in favour of the combination therapy. Reports indicate that disease-specific QoL was comparable between groups (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.56; 2 studies; 330 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and that the number of secondary invasive interventions (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.55; 3 studies; 457 participants; high-quality evidence) was lower following combination therapy.\n\nTwo studies comparing endovascular revascularisation plus pharmacotherapy (cilostazol) versus pharmacotherapy alone provided data showing a small effect on MWD (SMD 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.68; 186 participants; high-quality evidence), a moderate effect on PFWD (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94; 186 participants; high-quality evidence), and a moderate effect on disease-specific QoL (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; 170 participants; high-quality evidence) in favour of combination therapy. Long-term follow-up in one study (47 participants) revealed a moderate effect on MWD (SMD 0.72, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.36; P = 0.02) in favour of combination therapy and no clear differences in PFWD between groups (SMD 0.54, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.17; P = 0.09). The number of secondary invasive interventions was comparable between groups (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.49 to 6.83; 199 participants; high-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn the management of patients with IC, endovascular revascularisation does not provide significant benefits compared with supervised exercise alone in terms of improvement in functional performance or QoL. Although the number of studies is small and clinical heterogeneity underlines the need for more homogenous and larger studies, evidence suggests that a synergetic effect may occur when endovascular revascularisation is combined with a conservative therapy of supervised exercise or pharmacotherapy with cilostazol: the combination therapy seems to result in greater improvements in functional performance and in QoL scores than are seen with conservative therapy alone.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review assessed results reported by a limited number of studies showing that endovascular revascularisation and supervised exercise are more or less comparable treatment options in improving walking distances and quality of life among individuals with intermittent claudication. Combination therapy (endovascular revascularisation with either supervised exercise or drug therapy (cilostazol)) seems to result in greater improvements in walking distance and in quality of life than are seen with supervised exercise or drug therapy alone." } ]
query-laysum	5936	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCandida bloodstream infections most often affect those already suffering serious, potentially life-threatening conditions and often cause significant morbidity and mortality. Most affected persons have a central venous catheter (CVC) in place. The best CVC management in these cases has been widely debated in recent years, while the incidence of candidaemia has markedly increased.\nObjectives\nThe main purpose of this review is to examine the impact of removing versus retaining a CVC on mortality in adults and children with candidaemia who have a CVC in place.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases from inception to 3 December 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau (CAB), Web of Science and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We searched for missed, unreported and ongoing trials in trial registries and in reference lists of excluded articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving adults and children with candidaemia and in which participants were randomized for removal of a CVC (the intervention under study), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language.\nHowever, two major factors make the conduct of RCTs in this population a difficult task: the large sample size required to document the impact of catheter removal in terms of overall mortality; and lack of economic interest from the industry in conducting such a trial.\nData collection and analysis\nOur primary outcome measure was mortality. Several secondary outcome measures such as required time for clearance of blood cultures for Candida species, frequency of persistent candidaemia, complications, duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the hospital were planned, as were various subgroup and sensitivity analyses, according to our protocol. We assessed papers and abstracts for eligibility and resolved disagreements by discussion. However, we were not able to include any RCTs or quasi-RCTS in this review and, as a result, have carried out no meta-analyses. However, we have chosen to provide a brief overview of excluded observational studies.\nMain results\nWe found no RCT and thus no available data for evaluation of the primary outcome (mortality) nor secondary outcomes or adverse effects. Therefore, we conducted no statistical analysis.\nA total of 73 observational studies reported on various clinically relevant outcomes following catheter removal or catheter retention. Most of these excluded, observational studies reported a beneficial effect of catheter removal in patients with candidaemia. None of the observational studies reported results in favour of retaining a catheter. However, the observational studies were very heterogeneous with regards to population, pathogens and interventions. Furthermore, they suffered from confounding by indication and an overall high risk of bias. As a consequence, we are not able to provide recommendations or to draw firm conclusions because of the difficulties involved in interpreting the results of these observational studies (very low quality of evidence, GRADE - Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite indications from observational studies in favour of early catheter removal, we found no eligible RCTs or quasi-RCTs to support these practices and therefore could draw no firm conclusions. At this stage, RCTs have provided no evidence to support the benefit of early or late catheter removal for survival or other important outcomes among patients with candidaemia; no evidence with regards to assessment of harm or benefit with prompt central venous catheter removal and subsequent re-insertion of new catheters to continue treatment; and no evidence on optimal timing of insertion of a new central venous catheter.\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": "No randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Consequently, we cannot assess the quality of evidence." } ]
query-laysum	5937	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThere is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders. Barriers to closing the research gap include scarcity of skilled human resources, large inequities in resource distribution and utilization, and stigma.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of delivery by primary workers of interventions for the promotion of mental health and universal prevention, and for the selective and indicated prevention of mental disorders or symptoms of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the impact of intervention delivery by primary workers on resource use and costs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, PsycInfo, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 29 November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary-level and/or community health worker interventions for promoting mental health and/or preventing mental disorders versus any control conditions in adults and children in LMICs.\nData collection and analysis\nStandardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analyzed data at 0 to 1, 1 to 6, and 7 to 24 months post-intervention. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥ 0.80 large clinical effects. We evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB2.\nMain results\nDescription of studies\nWe identified 113 studies with 32,992 participants (97 RCTs, 19,570 participants in meta-analyses) for inclusion. Nineteen RCTs were conducted in low-income countries, 27 in low-middle-income countries, 2 in middle-income countries, 58 in upper-middle-income countries and 7 in mixed settings. Eighty-three RCTs included adults and 30 RCTs included children. Cadres of primary-level workers employed primary care health workers (38 studies), community workers (71 studies), both (2 studies), and not reported (2 studies). Interventions were universal prevention/promotion in 22 studies, selective in 36, and indicated prevention in 55 RCTs.\nRisk of bias\nThe most common concerns over risk of bias were performance bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias.\nIntervention effects\n'Probably', 'may', or 'uncertain' indicates 'moderate-', 'low-', or 'very low-'certainty evidence.\n*Certainty of the evidence (using GRADE) was assessed at 0 to 1 month post-intervention as specified in the review protocol. In the abstract, we did not report results for outcomes for which evidence was missing or very uncertain.\nAdults\nPromotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care:\n- probably slightly reduced anxiety symptoms (MD -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.01; 1 trial, 158 participants)\n- may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.08; 4 trials, 722 participants)\nSelective prevention, compared to usual care:\n- probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.30; 4 trials, 223 participants)\nIndicated prevention, compared to usual care:\n- may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 547 participants)\n- probably slightly reduced functional impairment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; 4 trials, 663 participants)\nChildren\nPromotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care:\n- may improve the quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11; 2 trials, 803 participants)\n- may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 694 participants)\n- may slightly reduce depressive symptoms (MD -3.04, 95% CI -6 to -0.08; 1 trial, 160 participants)\n- may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.41; 1 trial, 183 participants)\nSelective prevention, compared to usual care:\n- probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD 0, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.15; 2 trials, 638 participants)\n- may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD 4.50, 95% CI -12.05 to 21.05; 1 trial, 28 participants)\n- probably slightly reduced distress/PTSD symptoms (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.77 to -0.51; 1 trial, 159 participants)\nIndicated prevention, compared to usual care:\n- decreased slightly functional impairment (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; 2 trials, 448 participants)\n- decreased slightly depressive symptoms (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04; 4 trials, 771 participants)\n- may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.76; 2 trials, 448 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence indicated that prevention interventions delivered through primary workers - a form of task-shifting - may improve mental health outcomes. Certainty in the evidence was influenced by the risk of bias and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. A supportive network of infrastructure and research would enhance and reinforce this delivery modality across LMICs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Many people who would benefit from mental health support cannot access these services. One reason for this is a lack of specialized mental healthcare staff. This is especially true in low- and middle-income countries. To overcome this barrier, people without a professional background in mental health, such as nurses or teachers, can be trained to deliver some mental health services. In our review, we investigated whether this strategy helps to promote mental health and prevent mental disorders amongst adults and children. We also assessed its costs." } ]
query-laysum	5938	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is associated with mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. Phototherapy is a common treatment for jaundice in preterm infants. However, phototherapy has been associated with failure of closure of the ductus arteriosus in preterm infants.\nObjectives\nTo determine if chest shielding of preterm infants receiving phototherapy reduces the incidence of clinically and/or haemodynamically significant PDA and reduces morbidity secondary to PDA.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, previous reviews, cross-references, abstracts, proceedings of scientific meetings, and trial registries through March 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, or quasi-RCTs of chest shielding during phototherapy compared to sham shielding or no shielding for the prevention of a haemodynamically or clinically significant PDA in preterm infants.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and quality and extracted data. We defined a clinically significant PDA as the presence of a PDA with clinical signs of an effect on organ function attributable to the ductus arteriosus. We defined a haemodynamically significant PDA as clinical and/or echocardiographic signs of a significant ductus arteriosus effect on blood flow.\nMain results\nWe included two small trials enrolling very preterm infants (Rosenfeld 1986; Travadi 2006). We assessed both as at high risk of bias. No study reported clinically significant PDA, defined as the presence of a PDA with clinical symptoms or signs attributable to the effect of a ductus arteriosus on organ function. Rosenfeld 1986 reported a non-significant reduction in haemodynamically significant PDA with left atrial to aortic root ratio greater than 1.2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 1.01; 74 infants) but a statistically significant risk difference (RD -0.18, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5, 95% CI 3 to 33). Rosenfeld 1986 reported a significant reduction in PDA detected by murmur (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.88; RD -0.30, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.08; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 12; 74 infants). Rosenfeld 1986 reported a significant reduction in treatment with indomethacin (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.88; RD -0.21, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.06; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 17; 74 infants), and only one infant had a ductal ligation in the no-shield group. There were no other significant outcomes, including mortality to discharge or 28 days, days in oxygen, days on mechanical ventilation, days in hospital, intraventricular haemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, or exchange transfusion.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence is very low quality and insufficient to assess the safety or efficacy of chest shield during phototherapy for prevention of PDA in preterm infants. Further trials of chest shielding are warranted, particularly in settings where infants are not receiving prophylactic or early echocardiographic targeted cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors for PDA.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The ductus arteriosus is a fetal blood vessel that usually closes spontaneously after birth. However, in approximately 30% of infants born before 30 weeks gestation the vessel remains open (known as patent ductus arteriosus, or PDA), and the infant has problems with excess blood flow to the lungs, shunting of blood away from organs, and heart failure. Phototherapy is a common treatment for jaundice in preterm infants. However, phototherapy has been associated with failure of the closure of the ductus arteriosus in preterm infants." } ]
query-laysum	5939	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMajor abdominal surgery can be associated with a number of serious complications that may impair patient recovery. In particular, postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), including respiratory complications such as atelectasis and pneumonia, are a major contributor to postoperative morbidity and may even contribute to increased mortality. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a type of therapy that uses a high-pressure gas source to deliver constant positive pressure to the airways throughout both inspiration and expiration. This approach is expected to prevent some pulmonary complications, thus reducing mortality.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether any difference can be found in the rate of mortality and adverse events following major abdominal surgery in patients treated postoperatively with CPAP versus standard care, which may include traditional oxygen delivery systems, physiotherapy and incentive spirometry.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 9; Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 15 September 2013); EMBASE (1988 to 15 September 2013); Web of Science (to September 2013) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to September 2013).\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CPAP was compared with standard care for prevention of postoperative mortality and adverse events following major abdominal surgery. We included all adults (adults as defined by individual studies) of both sexes. The intervention of CPAP was applied during the postoperative period. We excluded studies in which participants had received PEEP during surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies that met the selection criteria from all studies identified by the search strategy. Two review authors extracted the data and assessed risk of bias separately, using a data extraction form. Data entry into RevMan was performed by one review author and was checked by another for accuracy. We performed a limited meta-analysis and constructed a summary of findings table.\nMain results\nWe selected 10 studies for inclusion in the review from 5236 studies identified in the search. These 10 studies included a total of 709 participants. Risk of bias for the included studies was assessed as high in six studies and as unclear in four studies.\nTwo RCTs reported all-cause mortality. Among 413 participants, there was no clear evidence of a difference in mortality between CPAP and control groups, and considerable heterogeneity between trials was noted (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 4.66; I2 = 75%).\nSix studies reported demonstrable atelectasis in the study population. A reduction in atelectasis was observed in the CPAP group, although heterogeneity between studies was substantial (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86; I2 = 61%). Pneumonia was reported in five studies, including 563 participants; CPAP reduced the rate of pneumonia, and no important heterogeneity was noted (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.84; I2 = 0%). The number of participants identified as having serious hypoxia was reported in two studies, with no clear difference between CPAP and control groups, given imprecise results and substantial heterogeneity between trials (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.02; I2 = 67%). A reduced rate of reintubation was reported in the CPAP group compared with the control group in two studies, and no important heterogeneity was identified (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.58; I2 = 0%). Admission into the intensive care unit (ICU) for invasive ventilation and supportive care was reduced in the CPAP group, but this finding did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.14; I2 = 0).\nSecondary outcomes such as length of hospital stay and adverse effects were only minimally reported.\nA summary of findings table was constructed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) principle. The quality of evidence was determined to be very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low-quality evidence from this review suggests that CPAP initiated during the postoperative period might reduce postoperative atelectasis, pneumonia and reintubation, but its effects on mortality, hypoxia or invasive ventilation are uncertain. Evidence is not sufficiently strong to confirm the benefits or harms of CPAP during the postoperative period in those undergoing major abdominal surgery. Most of the included studies did not report on adverse effects attributed to CPAP.\nNew, high-quality research is much needed to evaluate the use of CPAP in preventing mortality and morbidity following major abdominal surgery. With increasing availability of CPAP to our surgical patients and its potential to improve outcomes (possibly in conjunction with intraoperative lung protective ventilation strategies), unanswered questions regarding its efficacy and safety need to be addressed. Any future study must report on the adverse effects of CPAP.\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": "General anaesthesia can lead to reduced lung volumes and collapse of the alveoli as well as to reversible, patchy collapse of areas of lung (atelectasis) and subsequent low oxygenation. These problems are worse in those patients undergoing upper abdominal surgery, in those who have predisposing factors such as obesity and chronic lung disease and in smokers. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a type of therapy that uses a high-pressure gas source to deliver constant pressure to the airways throughout both inspiration and expiration in spontaneously breathing people; oxygen is added in appropriate amounts. CPAP uses a variety of masks, which are placed over the nose or mouth. The aim of this technique is to improve the oxygenation of patients while preventing common postoperative complications in vulnerable people, especially smokers and the obese.\nThis review was conducted to determine whether any difference can be found in death and major chest complications following major abdominal operations between patients treated with CPAP and those given standard care (oxygen by mask and physiotherapy)." } ]
query-laysum	5940	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUndernutrition contributes to five million deaths of children under five each year. Furthermore, throughout the life cycle, undernutrition contributes to increased risk of infection, poor cognitive functioning, chronic disease, and mortality. It is thus important for decision-makers to have evidence about the effectiveness of nutrition interventions for young children.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\n1. To assess the effectiveness of supplementary feeding interventions, alone or with co-intervention, for improving the physical and psychosocial health of disadvantaged children aged three months to five years.\nSecondary objectives\n1. To assess the potential of such programmes to reduce socio-economic inequalities in undernutrition.\n2. To evaluate implementation and to understand how this may impact on outcomes.\n3. To determine whether there are any adverse effects of supplementary feeding.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and seven other databases for all available years up to January 2014. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and several sources of grey literature. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, and asked experts in the area about ongoing and unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series (ITS) that provided supplementary food (with or without co-intervention) to children aged three months to five years, from all countries. Adjunctive treatments, such as nutrition education, were allowed. Controls had to be untreated.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo or more review authors independently reviewed searches, selected studies for inclusion or exclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses for continuous data using the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), correcting for clustering if necessary. We analysed studies from low- and middle-income countries and from high-income countries separately, and RCTs separately from CBAs. We conducted a process evaluation to understand which factors impact on effectiveness.\nMain results\nWe included 32 studies (21 RCTs and 11 CBAs); 26 of these (16 RCTs and 10 CBAs) were in meta-analyses. More than 50% of the RCTs were judged to have low risk of bias for random selection and incomplete outcome assessment. We judged most RCTS to be unclear for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, and selective outcome reporting. Because children and parents knew that they were given food, we judged blinding of participants and personnel to be at high risk for all studies.\nGrowth. Supplementary feeding had positive effects on growth in low- and middle-income countries. Meta-analysis of the RCTs showed that supplemented children gained an average of 0.12 kg more than controls over six months (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.18, 9 trials, 1057 participants, moderate quality evidence). In the CBAs, the effect was similar; 0.24 kg over a year (95% CI 0.09 to 0.39, 1784 participants, very low quality evidence). In high-income countries, one RCT found no difference in weight, but in a CBA with 116 Aboriginal children in Australia, the effect on weight was 0.95 kg (95% CI 0.58 to 1.33). For height, meta-analysis of nine RCTs revealed that supplemented children grew an average of 0.27 cm more over six months than those who were not supplemented (95% CI 0.07 to 0.48, 1463 participants, moderate quality evidence). Meta-analysis of seven CBAs showed no evidence of an effect (mean difference (MD) 0.52 cm, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.10, 7 trials, 1782 participants, very low quality evidence). Meta-analyses of the RCTs demonstrated benefits for weight-for-age z-scores (WAZ) (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24, 8 trials, 1565 participants, moderate quality evidence), and height-for-age z-scores (HAZ) (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.24, 9 trials, 4638 participants, moderate quality evidence), but not for weight-for-height z-scores MD 0.10 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.22, 7 trials, 4176 participants, moderate quality evidence). Meta-analyses of the CBAs showed no effects on WAZ, HAZ, or WHZ (very low quality evidence). We found moderate positive effects for haemoglobin (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91, 5 trials, 300 participants) in a meta-analysis of the RCTs.\nPsychosocial outcomes. Eight RCTs in low- and middle-income countries assessed psychosocial outcomes. Our meta-analysis of two studies showed moderate positive effects of feeding on psychomotor development (SMD 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.72, 178 participants). The evidence of effects on cognitive development was sparse and mixed.\nWe found evidence of substantial leakage. When feeding was given at home, children benefited from only 36% of the energy in the supplement. However, when the supplementary food was given in day cares or feeding centres, there was less leakage; children took in 85% of the energy provided in the supplement. Supplementary food was generally more effective for younger children (less than two years of age) and for those who were poorer/ less well-nourished. Results for sex were equivocal. Our results also suggested that feeding programmes which were given in day-care/feeding centres and those which provided a moderate-to-high proportion of the recommended daily intake (% RDI) for energy were more effective.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFeeding programmes for young children in low- and middle-income countries can work, but good implementation is key.\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": "Undernutrition is a cause of child mortality; it contributed to the deaths of more than three million children in 2011. Furthermore, it can lead to higher risk of infection, poorer child development and school performance, and to chronic disease in adulthood. Evidence about the effectiveness of nutrition interventions for young children, therefore, is fundamentally important; not only for governments, funding agencies and nongovernmental organisations, but also for the children themselves." } ]
query-laysum	5941	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeripheral intravenous cannulation is one of the most fundamental and common procedures in medicine. Securing a peripheral line is occasionally difficult with the landmark method. Ultrasound guidance has become a standard procedure for central venous cannulation, but its efficacy in achieving peripheral venous cannulation is unclear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound guidance compared to the landmark method for peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 29 November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which participants are systematically allocated based on data such as date of birth or recruitment) comparing the effects of ultrasound guidance to the landmark method for peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were first-pass success of cannulation, overall success of cannulation, and pain. Our secondary outcomes were procedure time for first-pass cannulation, procedure time for overall cannulation, number of attempts, patient satisfaction, and overall complications. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nPlacing a peripheral intravenous line in individuals can be classed as ‘difficult’, ‘moderate’, or ‘easy’. We use the terms ‘difficult participants’, ‘moderate/moderately difficult participants’ and ‘easy participants’ as shorthand to characterise the difficulty level in placing a peripheral line using the landmark method. We used the original studies’ definitions of difficulty levels of peripheral intravenous cannulation with the landmark method. We analysed the results in these subgroups: ‘difficult participants’, ‘moderate participants’, and ‘easy participants’. We did this because we expected the effect of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation to be largest in participants classed as ‘difficult’ and smaller in participants classed as ‘moderate’ and ‘easy’.\nMain results\nWe included 14 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs involving 2267 participants undergoing peripheral intravenous cannulation. Participants were classed as 'difficult' in 12 studies (880 participants), 'moderate' in one study (401 participants), and 'easy' in one study (596 participants). Two studies (390 participants) did not restrict by landmark method difficulty level. The overall risk of bias assessments ranged from low to high. We judged studies to be at high risk of bias mainly because of concerns about blinding for subjective outcomes.\nIn difficult participants, ultrasound guidance increased the first-pass success of cannulation (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15 to 1.95; 10 studies, 815 participants; low-certainty evidence), and the overall success of cannulation (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.77; 10 studies, 670 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in pain (mean difference (MD) -0.20, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.72; 4 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence; numerical rating scale (NRS) 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 119.9 seconds, 95% CI 88.6 to 151.1; 2 studies, 219 participants; low-certainty evidence), and patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.92; 5 studies, 333 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum satisfaction). Ultrasound guidance decreased the number of cannulation attempts (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.02; 9 studies, 568 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in the procedure time for overall cannulation (MD -24.9 seconds, 95% CI -323.1 to 273.3; 8 studies, 413 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and overall complications (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.10; 5 studies, 431 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIn moderate participants, ultrasound guidance increased the first-pass success of cannulation (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; 1 study, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the overall success of cannulation. There was no clear difference in pain (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.67; 1 study, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 95.2 seconds, 95% CI 72.8 to 117.6; 1 study, 401 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in overall complications (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.82; 1 study, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the procedure time for overall cannulation, number of cannulation attempts, or patient satisfaction.\nIn easy participants, ultrasound guidance decreased the first-pass success of cannulation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; 1 study, 596 participants; high-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the overall success of cannulation. Ultrasound guidance increased pain (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 1 study, 596 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 94.8 seconds, 95% CI 81.2 to 108.5; 1 study, 596 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in overall complications (RR 2.48, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.87; 1 study, 596 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the procedure time for overall cannulation, number of cannulation attempts, or patient satisfaction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low- and low-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance may benefit difficult participants for increased first-pass and overall success of cannulation, with no difference detected in pain. There is moderate- and low-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance may benefit moderately difficult participants due to a small increased first-pass success of cannulation with no difference detected in pain. There is moderate- and high-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance does not benefit easy participants: ultrasound guidance decreased the first-pass success of cannulation with no difference detected in overall success of cannulation and increased pain.\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": "In people where peripheral intravenous cannulation using the landmark method is difficult, ultrasound guidance may increase the first-pass and overall success of cannulation and has no clear effect on pain. In moderately difficult patients, ultrasound guidance probably increases the first-pass success of cannulation slightly and may have no clear effect on pain. In easy patients, ultrasound guidance reduces the first-pass success of cannulation and probably increases pain slightly.\nThe lack of common definitions amongst the included studies for difficulty levels with the landmark method and puncture failure undermined the results. Future studies should use common definitions." } ]
query-laysum	5942	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAutism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are characterised by impairments in communication and reciprocal social interaction. These impairments can impact on relationships with family members, augment stress and frustration, and contribute to behaviours that can be described as challenging. Family members of individuals with ASD can experience high rates of carer stress and burden, and poor parental efficacy. While there is evidence to suggest that individuals with ASD and family members derive benefit from psychological interventions designed to reduce stress and mental health morbidity, and enhance coping, most studies to date have targeted the needs of either individuals with ASD, or family members. We wanted to examine whether family (systemic) therapy, aimed at enhancing communication, relationships or coping, is effective for individuals with ASD and their wider family network.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and acceptability of family therapy as a treatment to enhance communication or coping for individuals with ASD and their family members. If possible, we will also seek to establish the economic costs associated with family therapy for this clinical population.\nSearch methods\nOn 16 January 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and three trials registers. We also handsearched reference lists of existing systematic reviews and contacted study authors in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating the effectiveness of family therapy for young people or adults with ASD or family members, or both, delivered via any modality and for an unspecified duration, compared with either standard care, a wait-list control, or an active intervention such as an alternative type of psychological therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened each title and abstract and all full-text reports retrieved. To enhance rigour, 25% of these were independently screened by a third author.\nMain results\nThe search yielded 4809 records. Of these, we retrieved 37 full-text reports for further scrutiny, which we subsequently excluded as they did not meet the review inclusion criteria, and identified one study awaiting classification.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFew studies have examined the effectiveness of family therapy for ASD, and none of these are RCTs. Further research studies employing methodologically robust trial designs are needed to establish whether family therapy interventions are clinically beneficial for enhancing communication, strengthening relationships, augmenting coping and reducing mental health morbidity for individuals with ASD and family members.\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 ASD often experience difficulty with knowing how to communicate with others, and with developing and maintaining friendships and relationships. They can also find it difficult to manage changes to their routine. People with ASD tend to rely on family members, including parents and siblings, well into adulthood. Family members of people with ASD sometimes experience stress, anxiety and depression.\nSeveral research studies have investigated the benefits of talking therapies for individuals with ASD or for family members. While study findings suggest that these therapies can improve communication and coping, and mental health and well-being, outcomes are usually reported for the person with ASD or family members, but not both.\nFamily therapy is designed to help people within the family make sense of difficult situations, and help them work together to develop new ways of thinking about and managing these difficulties. It is important to find out if family therapy can be helpful for people with ASD and their relatives given that the core symptoms of ASD, and additional difficulties people can experience, often impact on the family unit.\nWe searched for all the available evidence, published or unpublished, up until 16 January 2017, which examined family therapy for ASD." } ]
query-laysum	5943	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHarmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder.\nFifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty).\nEight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty).\nFour trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use.\n\nThirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I2 = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I2 = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron.\nAcross all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.\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 certainty of evidence on the effect of brief and other psychosocial interventions on harmful alcohol use was very low due to lack of masking, differential attrition and missing data, selective outcome reporting, high heterogeneity, and differences in patient populations. The certainty of evidence on the effect of combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions on harmful alcohol use was low due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, and heterogeneity in the pharmacologic interventions under investigation. No studies evaluated the effect of pharmacologic interventions alone on harmful alcohol use.\nThe evidence is current to 12 December 2021." } ]
query-laysum	5944	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAbout half of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) require surgery within 10 years of diagnosis. Resection of the affected segment is highly effective, however the majority of patients experience clinical recurrence after surgery. Most of these patients have asymptomatic endoscopic recurrence weeks or months before starting with symptoms. This inflammation can be detected by colonoscopy and is a good predictor of poor prognosis.Therapy guided by colonoscopy could tailor the management and improve the prognosis of postoperative CD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of prophylactic therapy guided by colonoscopy in reducing the postoperative recurrence of CD in adults.\nSearch methods\nThe following electronic databases were searched up to 17 December 2019: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Clinical Trials.gov, WHO Trial Registry and Cochrane IBD specialized register. Reference lists of included articles, as well as conference proceedings were handsearched.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cohort studies comparing colonoscopy-guided management versus management non-guided by colonoscopy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently considered studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Methodological quality was assessed using both the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies. The primary outcome was clinical recurrence. Secondary outcomes included: endoscopic, surgical recurrence and adverse events. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each dichotomous outcome and extracted the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. All estimates were reported with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nTwo RCTs (237 participants) and five cohort studies (794 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not conducted as the studies were highly heterogeneous. We included two comparisons.\nIntensification of prophylactic-therapy guided by colonoscopy versus intensification guided by clinical recurrence\nOne unblinded RCT and four retrospective cohort studies addressed this comparison. All participants received the same prophylactic therapy immediately after surgery. In the colonoscopy-based management group the therapy was intensified in case of endoscopic recurrence; in the control group the therapy was intensified only in case of symptoms.\nIn the RCT, clinical recurrence (defined as Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) > 150 points) in the colonoscopy-based management group was 37.7% (46/122) compared to 46.1% (21/52) in the control group at 18 months' follow up (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.18, 174 participants, low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in endoscopic recurrence at 18 months with colonoscopy-based management (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95, 1 RCT, 174 participants, low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence for surgical recurrence was very low, due to only four cohort studies with inconsistent results reporting this outcome.\nAdverse events at 18 months were similar in both groups, with 82% in the intervention group (100/122) and 86.5% in the control group (45/52) (RR 0.95, 95% CI:0.83 to 1.08, 1 RCT, 174 participants, low-certainty of evidence).The most common adverse events reported were alopecia, wound infection, sensory symptoms, systemic lupus, vasculitis and severe injection site reaction. Perforations or haemorrhages secondary to colonoscopy were not reported.\nInitiation of prophylactic-therapy guided by colonoscopy versus initiation immediately after surgery\nAn unblinded RCT and two retrospective cohort studies addressed this comparison. The control group received prophylactic therapy immediately after surgery, and in the colonoscopy-based management group the therapy was delayed up to detection of endoscopic recurrence.\nThe effects on clinical and endoscopic recurrence are uncertain (clinical recurrence until week 102: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.84; endoscopic recurrence at week 102: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.84; 1 RCT, 63 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Results from one cohort study were similarly uncertain (median follow-up 32 months, 199 participants). The effects on surgical recurrence at a median follow-up of 50 to 55 months were also uncertain in one cohort study (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.62, 133 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nThere were fewer adverse events with colonoscopy-based management (54.8% (17/31)) compared with the control group (93.8% (30/32)) but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.82; 1 RCT, 63 participants). Common adverse events were infections, gastrointestinal intolerance, leukopenia, pancreatitis and skin lesions. Perforations or haemorrhages secondary to colonoscopy were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIntensification of prophylactic-therapy guided by colonoscopy may reduce clinical and endoscopic postoperative recurrence of CD compared to intensification guided by symptoms, and there may be little or no difference in adverse effects. We are uncertain whether initiation of therapy guided by colonoscopy impacts postoperative recurrence and adverse events when compared to initiation immediately after surgery, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Further studies are necessary to improve the certainty of the evidence of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Prophylactic-therapy guided by colonoscopy may decrease the risk of clinical and endoscopic recurrence compared to prophylactic-therapy guided by symptoms with little or no difference the risk of adverse events. We are uncertain whether initiation of therapy guided by colonoscopy compared to initiation immediately after surgery impacts postoperative recurrence and adverse events." } ]
query-laysum	5945	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is a common and important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Depression is commonly treated with antidepressants and/or psychological therapy, but some people may prefer alternative approaches such as exercise. There are a number of theoretical reasons why exercise may improve depression. This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of depression in adults compared with no treatment or a comparator intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group’s Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) to 13 July 2012. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years); MEDLINE (1950 to date); EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We also searched www.controlled-trials.com, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. No date or language restrictions were applied to the search.\nWe conducted an additional search of the CCDANCTR up to 1st March 2013 and any potentially eligible trials not already included are listed as 'awaiting classification.'\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in which exercise (defined according to American College of Sports Medicine criteria) was compared to standard treatment, no treatment or a placebo treatment, pharmacological treatment, psychological treatment or other active treatment in adults (aged 18 and over) with depression, as defined by trial authors. We included cluster trials and those that randomised individuals. We excluded trials of postnatal depression.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data on primary and secondary outcomes at the end of the trial and end of follow-up (if available). We calculated effect sizes for each trial using Hedges' g method and a standardised mean difference (SMD) for the overall pooled effect, using a random-effects model risk ratio for dichotomous data. Where trials used a number of different tools to assess depression, we included the main outcome measure only in the meta-analysis. Where trials provided several 'doses' of exercise, we used data from the biggest 'dose' of exercise, and performed sensitivity analyses using the lower 'dose'. We performed subgroup analyses to explore the influence of method of diagnosis of depression (diagnostic interview or cut-off point on scale), intensity of exercise and the number of sessions of exercise on effect sizes. Two authors performed the 'Risk of bias' assessments. Our sensitivity analyses explored the influence of study quality on outcome.\nMain results\nThirty-nine trials (2326 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which 37 provided data for meta-analyses. There were multiple sources of bias in many of the trials; randomisation was adequately concealed in 14 studies, 15 used intention-to-treat analyses and 12 used blinded outcome assessors.\nFor the 35 trials (1356 participants) comparing exercise with no treatment or a control intervention, the pooled SMD for the primary outcome of depression at the end of treatment was -0.62 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.81 to -0.42), indicating a moderate clinical effect. There was moderate heterogeneity (I² = 63%).\nWhen we included only the six trials (464 participants) with adequate allocation concealment, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded outcome assessment, the pooled SMD for this outcome was not statistically significant (-0.18, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.11). Pooled data from the eight trials (377 participants) providing long-term follow-up data on mood found a small effect in favour of exercise (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03).\nTwenty-nine trials reported acceptability of treatment, three trials reported quality of life, none reported cost, and six reported adverse events.\nFor acceptability of treatment (assessed by number of drop-outs during the intervention), the risk ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.04).\nSeven trials compared exercise with psychological therapy (189 participants), and found no significant difference (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.26). Four trials (n = 300) compared exercise with pharmacological treatment and found no significant difference (SMD -0.11, -0.34, 0.12). One trial (n = 18) reported that exercise was more effective than bright light therapy (MD -6.40, 95% CI -10.20 to -2.60).\nFor each trial that was included, two authors independently assessed for sources of bias in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration 'Risk of bias' tool. In exercise trials, there are inherent difficulties in blinding both those receiving the intervention and those delivering the intervention. Many trials used participant self-report rating scales as a method for post-intervention analysis, which also has the potential to bias findings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise is moderately more effective than a control intervention for reducing symptoms of depression, but analysis of methodologically robust trials only shows a smaller effect in favour of exercise. When compared to psychological or pharmacological therapies, exercise appears to be no more effective, though this conclusion is based on a few small trials.\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": "The reviewers recommend that future research should look in more detail at what types of exercise could most benefit people with depression, and the number and duration of sessions which are of most benefit. Further larger trials are needed to find out whether exercise is as effective as antidepressants or psychological treatments." } ]
query-laysum	5946	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInfection with the protozoan Entamoeba histolytica is common in low- and middle-income countries, and up to 100,000 people with severe disease die every year. Adequate therapy for amoebic colitis is necessary to reduce illness, prevent development of complicated disease and extraintestinal spread, and decrease transmission.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the available literature up to 22 March 2018. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, mRCT, and conference proceedings. We contacted individual researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and we checked reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials of antiamoebic drugs given alone or in combination, compared with placebo or another antiamoebic drug, for treating adults and children with a diagnosis of amoebic colitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials and extracted and analysed the data. We calculated clinical and parasitological failure rates and rates of relapse and adverse events as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. We determined statistical heterogeneity and explored possible sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We carried out sensitivity analysis by using trial quality to assess the robustness of reported results.\nMain results\nIn total, 41 trials (4999 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this review. In this update, we added four trials to the 37 trials included in the first published review version. Thirty trials were published over 20 years ago. Only one trial used adequate methods of randomization and allocation concealment, was blinded, and analysed all randomized participants. Only one trial used an E histolytica stool antigen test, and two trials used amoebic culture.\nTinidazole may be more effective than metronidazole for reducing clinical failure (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; 477 participants, eight trials; low-certainty evidence) and is probably associated with fewer adverse events (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.92; 477 participants, 8 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with metronidazole, combination therapy may result in fewer parasitological failures (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.86; 720 participants, 3 trials; low-certainty evidence), but we are uncertain which combination is more effective than another. Evidence is insufficient to allow conclusions regarding the efficacy of other antiamoebic drugs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared with metronidazole, tinidazole may be more effective in reducing clinical failure and may be associated with fewer adverse events. Combination drug therapy may be more effective for reducing parasitological failure compared with metronidazole alone. However, these results are based mostly on small trials conducted over 20 years ago with a variety of poorly defined outcomes. Tests that detect E histolytica more accurately are needed, particularly in countries where concomitant infection with other bacteria and parasites is common.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review included 41 studies, most of which were conducted in countries considered to be highly endemic for amoebiasis. Most trials were old: 30 were conducted before 1998. Trials varied in the inclusion criteria used to enrol participants and in the definition and timing of measured outcomes. Stool microscopy with direct wet saline smear was the method used most often to detect the presence of E histolytica in stools. Study participants ranged in age from seven months to 80 years. Included trials reported a variety of comparisons and involved 25 individual drugs, two herbal products, and 15 different combinations.\nThe review shows that in individuals with amoebic colitis, tinidazole may be better for reducing clinical symptoms (low-certainty evidence) and probably results in fewer adverse events when compared with metronidazole (moderate-certainty evidence). However, we do not know whether it is more effective for eradicating amoebae from the stools. Combination drug therapy may be more effective than metronidazole alone for eradicating amoebae (low-certainty evidence), but we are uncertain which drug combination is most effective, and if combination treatment will lead to more rapid resolution of clinical symptoms or in more adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Evidence is insufficient to allow conclusions regarding efficacy of the other antiamoebic drugs." } ]
query-laysum	5947	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma is rare. Nonetheless, missing these injuries can have severe consequences. To prevent the overuse of radiographic imaging, two clinical decision tools have been developed: The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR). Both tools are proven to be accurate in deciding whether or not diagnostic imaging is needed in adults presenting for blunt trauma screening at the emergency department. However, little information is known about the accuracy of these triage tools in a pediatric population.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule in a pediatric population evaluated for CSI following blunt trauma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to 24 February 2015: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE Non-Indexed and In-Process Citations, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment, and the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all retrospective and prospective studies involving children following blunt trauma that evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria, the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both. Plain radiography, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine, and follow-up were considered as adequate reference standards.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using the QUADAS-2 checklists. They extracted data on study design, patient characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinical parameters, target condition, reference standard, and the diagnostic two-by-two table. We calculated and plotted sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value in ROC space, and constructed forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy.\nMain results\nThree cohort studies were eligible for analysis, including 3380 patients ; 96 children were diagnosed with CSI. One study evaluated the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule and the NEXUS criteria, and two studies evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria. The studies were of moderate quality. Due to the small number of included studies and the diverse outcomes of those studies, we could not describe a pooled estimate for the diagnostic test accuracy. The sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria of the individual studies was 0.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.90), 0.98 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). The specificity of the NEXUS criteria was 0.35 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.45), 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.62) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.21). For the Canadian C-spine Rule the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.15 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.23). Since the quantity of the data was small we were not able to investigate heterogeneity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are currently few studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and CCR in children. At the moment, there is not enough evidence to determine the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule to detect CSI in pediatric trauma patients following blunt trauma. The confidence interval of the sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria between the individual studies showed a wide range, with a lower limit varying from 0.18 to 0.91 with a total of four false negative test results, meaning that if physicians use the NEXUS criteria in children, there is a chance of missing CSI. Since missing CSI could have severe consequences with the risk of significant morbidity, we consider that the NEXUS criteria are at best a guide to clinical assessment, with current evidence not supporting strict or protocolized adoption of the tool into pediatric trauma care. Moreover, we have to keep in mind that the sensitivity differs among several studies, and individual confidence intervals of these studies show a wide range. Our main conclusion is therefore that additional well-designed studies with large sample sizes are required to better evaluate the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both, in order to determine whether they are appropriate triage tools for the clearance of the cervical spine in children following blunt trauma.\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 identified three studies of moderate to good quality. All studies tested the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria, and one of them also tested the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rules." } ]
query-laysum	5948	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nObstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) is associated with several chronic diseases, including erectile dysfunction (ED). The association of OSAS and ED is far more common than might be found by chance; the treatment of OSAS with non-invasive positive airway pressure therapy is associated with improvement of respiratory symptoms, and may contribute to the improvement of associated conditions, such as ED.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and acceptability of non-invasive positive airway pressure therapy for improving erectile dysfunction in OSAS.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED EBSCO, and LILACS, the US National Institutes of Health ongoing trials register ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation international clinical trials registry platform to 14 June 2021, with no restriction on date, language, or status of publication. We checked the reference lists of all primary studies, and review articles for additional references, and relevant manufacturers' websites for study information. We also searched specific conference proceedings for the British Association of Urological Surgeons; the European Association of Urology; and the American Urological Association to 14 June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel or cross-over design, or cluster-RCTs, which included men aged 18 years or older, with OSAS and ED. We considered RCTs comparing any non-invasive positive airway pressure therapy (such as continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), variable positive airway pressure (VPAP), or similar devices) versus sham, no treatment, waiting list, or pharmacological treatment for ED. The primary outcomes were remission of ED and serious adverse events; secondary outcome were sex-related quality of life, health-related quality of life, and minor adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. A third review author solved any disagreement. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included RCTs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. To measure the treatment effect on dichotomous outcomes, we used the risk ratio (RR); for continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD). We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for these measures. When possible (data availability and homogeneous studies), we used a random-effect model to pool data with a meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs (all assessing CPAP as the non-invasive positive airway pressure therapy device), with a total of 315 men with OSAS and ED. All RCTs presented some important risk of bias related to selection, performance, assessment, or reporting bias. None of included RCTs assessed the ED remission rate, and we used the provided ED mean scores as a proxy.\nCPAP versus no CPAP\nThere is uncertainty about the effect of CPAP on mean ED scores after 4 weeks, using the International index of erectile function (IIEF-5, higher = better; MD 7.50, 95% CI 4.05 to 10.95; 1 RCT; 27 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and after 12 weeks (IIEF-ED, ED domain; MD 2.50, 95% CI -1.10 to 6.10; 1 RCT; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations and imprecision). There is uncertainty about the effect of CPAP on sex-related quality of life after 12 weeks, using the Self-esteem and relationship test (SEAR, higher = better; MD 1.00, 95% CI -8.09 to 10.09; 1 RCT; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations and imprecision); no serious adverse events were reported after 4 weeks (1 RCT; 27 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations and imprecision).\nCPAP versus sham CPAP\nOne RCT assessed this comparison (61 participants), but we were unable to extract outcomes for this comparison due to the factorial design and reporting of this trial.\nCPAP versus sildenafil (phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors)\nSildenafil may slightly improve erectile function at 12 weeks when compared to CPAP, measured with the IIEF-ED (MD -4.78, 95% CI -6.98 to -2.58; 3 RCTs; 152 participants; I² = 59%; low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations).\nThere is uncertainty about the effect of CPAP on sex-related quality of life after 12 weeks, measured with the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction questionnaire (EDITS, higher = better; MD -1.24, 95% CI -1.80 to -0.67; 2 RCTs; 122 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations). No serious adverse events were reported for either group (2 RCTs; 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations and imprecision). There is uncertainty about the effects of CPAP when compared to sildenafil for the incidence of minor adverse events (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.21; 1 RCT; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to methodological limitations and imprecision). The confidence interval was wide and neither a significant increase nor reduction in the risk of minor adverse events can be ruled out with the use of CPAP (4/20 men complained of nasal dryness in the CPAP group, and 3/20 men complained of transient flushing and mild headache in the sildenafil group).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared with no CPAP, we are uncertain about the effectiveness and acceptability of CPAP for improving erectile dysfunction in men with obstructive sleep apnoea. When compared with sildenafil, there is some evidence that sildenafil may slightly improve erectile function at 12 weeks.\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": "OSAS is a clinical condition in which repeated throat obstructions occur during sleep, leading to pauses in breathing. Erectile dysfunction is the inability of a man to achieve and maintain a sufficient erection to allow satisfactory sexual activity. The association of OSAS and ED is far more common than might be found by chance.\nNon-invasive positive airway pressure therapy is a device that is attached to a mask that delivers oxygen. The device helps air enter the airways and help breathing. There are a few different types of devices including continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), or variable positive airway pressure (VPAP). CPAP is widely recognised as the first-line treatment for OSAS. However, it is uncertain whether CPAP or other non-invasive positive airway pressure therapy device have an effect on ED experienced by men with OSAS." } ]
query-laysum	5949	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInterleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19.\nWe will update this assessment regularly.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events.\nMain results\nWe identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab.\nEffectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19\nAnakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence.\nThe evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence).\nSafety of anakinra for people with COVID-19\nAnakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence).\nEffectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19\nCanakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence).\nSafety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19\nCanakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is up to date to 5 November 2021." } ]
query-laysum	5950	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDelirium is a common mental disorder, which is distressing and has serious adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. Prevention of delirium is desirable from the perspective of patients and carers, and healthcare providers. It is currently unclear, however, whether interventions for preventing delirium are effective.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group’s Specialized Register on 4 December 2015 for all randomised studies on preventing delirium. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Central (The Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science core collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO meta register of trials, ICTRP.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multi- component non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data independently, with any disagreements settled by consensus. The primary outcome was incidence of delirium; secondary outcomes included duration and severity of delirium, institutional care at discharge, quality of life and healthcare costs. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes; and between group mean differences and standard deviations for continuous outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. Fourteen trials were placebo-controlled, 15 evaluated a delirium prevention intervention against usual care, and 10 compared two different interventions. Thirty-two studies were conducted in patients undergoing surgery, the majority in orthopaedic settings. Seven studies were conducted in general medical or geriatric medicine settings.\nWe found multi-component interventions reduced the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; seven studies; 1950 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Effect sizes were similar in medical (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92; four studies; 1365 participants) and surgical settings (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.85; three studies; 585 participants). In the subgroup of patients with pre-existing dementia, the effect of multi-component interventions remains uncertain (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; one study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence).\nThere is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors are effective in preventing delirium compared to placebo (RR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.17 to 2.62; two studies, 113 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nThree trials provide no clear evidence of an effect of antipsychotic medications as a group on the incidence of delirium (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.59; 916 participants; very low-quality evidence). In a pre-planned subgroup analysis there was no evidence for effectiveness of a typical antipsychotic (haloperidol) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.60; two studies; 516 participants, low-quality evidence). However, delirium incidence was lower (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52; one study; 400 participants, moderate-quality evidence) for patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence).\nThere is no clear evidence that melatonin or melatonin agonists reduce delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.89; three studies, 529 participants; low-quality evidence).\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that Bispectral Index (BIS)-guided anaesthesia reduces the incidence of delirium compared to BIS-blinded anaesthesia or clinical judgement (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85; two studies; 2057 participants).\nIt is not possible to generate robust evidence statements for a range of additional pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions due to small numbers of trials, of variable methodological quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is strong evidence supporting multi-component interventions to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients. There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors, antipsychotic medication or melatonin reduce the incidence of delirium. Using the Bispectral Index to monitor and control depth of anaesthesia reduces the incidence of postoperative delirium. The role of drugs and other anaesthetic techniques to prevent delirium remains uncertain.\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": "Delirium is a common and serious illness for people admitted to hospital. It can be distressing for patients and their families. It also increases the chances of developing other complications in hospital, being admitted to a care home or dying in hospital. Delirium is a very expensive condition for health services. Prevention of delirium is therefore desirable for patients, families and health services.\nThere are many risk factors for developing delirium (e.g. infection, dehydration, certain medications). Therefore, one approach (called ‘multi-component interventions’) to preventing delirium is to target these multiple risk factors. Some medications have effects on the brain chemicals implicated in developing delirium, and may, therefore, have a role in prevention. There are also a number of other interventions that target delirium risk factors related to anaesthesia and medical treatment around the time of surgery." } ]
query-laysum	5951	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nArterial vascular access is a frequently performed procedure, with a high possibility for adverse events (e.g. pneumothorax, haemothorax, haematoma, amputation, death), and additional techniques such as ultrasound may be useful for improving outcomes. However, ultrasound guidance for arterial access in adults is still under debate.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of ultrasound guidance for arterial (other than femoral) catheterisation in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL on 21 May 2021. We also searched IBECS, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 June 2021, and we checked the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over trials and cluster-RCTs, comparing ultrasound guidance, alone or associated with other forms of guidance, versus other interventions or palpation and landmarks for arterial (other than femoral) guidance in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 48 studies (7997 participants) that tested palpation and landmarks, Doppler auditory ultrasound assistance (DUA), direct ultrasound guidance with B-mode, or any other modified ultrasound technique for arterial (axillary, dorsalis pedis, and radial) catheterisation in adults.\nRadial artery\nReal-time B-mode ultrasound versus palpation and landmarks\nReal-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve first attempt success rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 1.61; 4708 participants, 27 studies; low-certainty evidence) and overall success rate (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16; 4955 participants, 28 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may decrease time needed for a successful procedure (mean difference (MD) -0.33 minutes, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.13; 4902 participants, 26 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to one hour compared to palpation and landmarks. Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably decreases major haematomas (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56; 2504 participants, 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on pseudoaneurysm, pain, and quality of life (QoL) compared to palpation and landmarks (very low-certainty evidence).\nReal-time B-mode ultrasound versus DUA\nOne study (493 participants) showed that real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably improves first attempt success rate (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64; moderate-certainty evidence) and time needed for a successful procedure (MD -1.57 minutes, 95% CI -1.78 to -1.36; moderate-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to DUA. Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve overall success rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.29; low-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to DUA. Pseudoaneurysm, major haematomas, pain, and QoL were not reported.\nReal-time B-mode ultrasound versus modified real-time B-mode ultrasound\nReal-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may decrease first attempt success rate (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.84; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), may decrease overall success rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may lead to no difference in time needed for a successful procedure (MD 0.04 minutes, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to one hour compared to modified real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance. It is uncertain whether real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on major haematomas compared to modified real-time B-mode ultrasound (very low-certainty evidence). Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported.\nIn-plane versus out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound\nIn-plane real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may lead to no difference in overall success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 1051 participants, 8 studies; low-certainty evidence) and in time needed for a successful procedure (MD -0.06 minutes, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; 1134 participants, 9 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound up to one hour. It is uncertain whether in-plane real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on first attempt success rate or major haematomas compared to out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound (very low-certainty evidence). Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported.\nDUA versus palpation and landmarks\nDUA may lead to no difference in first attempt success rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 666 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or overall success rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 666 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time needed for a successful procedure (MD 0.45 minutes, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.70; 500 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to palpation and landmarks. Pseudoaneurysm, major haematomas, pain, and QoL were not reported.\nOblique-axis versus long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound\nOblique-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound guidance may increase overall success rate (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.53; 215 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound. It is uncertain whether oblique-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on first attempt success rate, time needed for a successful procedure, and major haematomas compared to long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound. Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported.\nWe are uncertain about effects in the following comparisons due to very low-certainty evidence and unreported outcomes: real-time B-mode ultrasound versus palpation and landmarks (axillary and dorsalis pedis arteries), real-time B-mode ultrasound versus near-infrared laser (radial artery), and dynamic versus static out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound (radial artery).\nAuthors' conclusions\nReal-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve first attempt success rate, overall success rate, and time needed for a successful procedure for radial artery catheterisation compared to palpation, or DUA. In addition, real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably decreases major haematomas compared to palpation. However, we are uncertain about the evidence on major haematomas and pain for other comparisons due to very low-certainty evidence and unreported outcomes. We are also uncertain about the effects on pseudoaneurysm and QoL for axillary and dorsalis pedis arteries catheterisation. Given that first attempt success rate and pseudoaneurysm are the most relevant outcomes for people who underwent arterial catheterisation, future studies must measure both. Future trials must be large enough to detect effects, use validated scales, and report longer-term follow-up.\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": "Despite the availability of devices that help health professionals to access arteries, unwanted events such as pneumothorax (air outside the lung and inside the thorax), haemothorax (blood outside the lung and inside the thorax), haematoma (blooding in skin and other tissues), amputation, and death may happen. Additional techniques such as ultrasound may be useful for improving these results, but their effects for arterial access in adults remain under debate." } ]
query-laysum	5952	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel betacoronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have mild disease with unspecific symptoms, but about 5% become critically ill with respiratory failure, septic shock and multiple organ failure. An unknown proportion of infected individuals never experience COVID-19 symptoms although they are infectious, that is, they remain asymptomatic. Those who develop the disease, go through a presymptomatic period during which they are infectious. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infections to detect individuals who are infected before they present clinically, could therefore be an important measure to contain the spread of the disease.\nObjectives\nWe conducted a rapid review to assess (1) the effectiveness of universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no screening and (2) the accuracy of universal screening in people who have not presented to clinical care for symptoms of COVID-19.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched Ovid MEDLINE and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database up to 26 May 2020. We searched Embase.com, the CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Covid-19 Study Register on 14 April 2020. We searched LitCovid to 4 April 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) provided records from daily searches in Chinese databases and in PubMed up to 15 April 2020. We also searched three model repositories (Covid-Analytics, Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study [MIDAS], and Society for Medical Decision Making) on 8 April 2020.\nSelection criteria\nTrials, observational studies, or mathematical modelling studies assessing screening effectiveness or screening accuracy among general populations in which the prevalence of SARS-CoV2 is unknown.\nData collection and analysis\nAfter pilot testing review forms, one review author screened titles and abstracts. Two review authors independently screened the full text of studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Abstracts excluded by a first review author were dually reviewed by a second review author prior to exclusion. One review author independently extracted data, which was checked by a second review author for completeness and accuracy. Two review authors independently rated the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies and a modified form designed originally for economic evaluations for modelling studies. We resolved differences by consensus. We synthesized the evidence in narrative and tabular formats. We rated the certainty of evidence for days to outbreak, transmission, cases missed and detected, diagnostic accuracy (i.e. true positives, false positives, true negatives, false negatives) using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 22 publications. Two modelling studies reported on effectiveness of universal screening. Twenty studies (17 cohort studies and 3 modelling studies) reported on screening test accuracy.\nEffectiveness of screening\nWe included two modelling studies. One study suggests that symptom screening at travel hubs, such as airports, may slightly slow but not stop the importation of infected cases (assuming 10 or 100 infected travellers per week reduced the delay in a local outbreak to 8 days or 1 day, respectively). We assessed risk of bias as minor or no concerns, and certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for very serious indirectness. The second modelling study provides very low-certainty evidence that screening of healthcare workers in emergency departments using laboratory tests may reduce transmission to patients and other healthcare workers (assuming a transmission constant of 1.2 new infections per 10,000 people, weekly screening reduced infections by 5.1% within 30 days). The certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for high risk of bias (major concerns) and indirectness. No modelling studies reported on harms of screening.\nScreening test accuracy\nAll 17 cohort studies compared an index screening strategy to a reference reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. All but one study reported on the accuracy of single point-in-time screening and varied widely in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, settings, and methods of measurement.\nWe assessed the overall risk of bias as unclear in 16 out of 17 studies, mainly due to limited information on the index test and reference standard. We rated one study as being at high risk of bias due to the inclusion of two separate populations with likely different prevalences. For several screening strategies, the estimates of sensitivity came from small samples.\nFor single point-in-time strategies, for symptom assessment, the sensitivity from 12 cohorts (524 people) ranged from 0.00 to 0.60 (very low-certainty evidence) and the specificity from 12 cohorts (16,165 people) ranged from 0.66 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For screening using direct temperature measurement (3 cohorts, 822 people), international travel history (2 cohorts, 13,080 people), or exposure to known infected people (3 cohorts, 13,205 people) or suspected infected people (2 cohorts, 954 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.00 to 0.23 (very low- to low-certainty evidence) and specificity ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). For symptom assessment plus direct temperature measurement (2 cohorts, 779 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.12 to 0.69 (very low-certainty evidence) and specificity from 0.90 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For rapid PCR test (1 cohort, 21 people), sensitivity was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; very low-certainty evidence). One cohort (76 people) reported on repeated screening with symptom assessment and demonstrates a sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.59; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity of 0.62 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence).\nThree modelling studies evaluated the accuracy of screening at airports. The main outcomes measured were cases missed or detected by entry or exit screening, or both, at airports. One study suggests very low sensitivity at 0.30 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.53), missing 70% of infected travellers. Another study described an unrealistic scenario to achieve a 90% detection rate, requiring 0% asymptomatic infections. The final study provides very uncertain evidence due to low methodological quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence base for the effectiveness of screening comes from two mathematical modelling studies and is limited by their assumptions. Low-certainty evidence suggests that screening at travel hubs may slightly slow the importation of infected cases. This review highlights the uncertainty and variation in accuracy of screening strategies. A high proportion of infected individuals may be missed and go on to infect others, and some healthy individuals may be falsely identified as positive, requiring confirmatory testing and potentially leading to the unnecessary isolation of these individuals. Further studies need to evaluate the utility of rapid laboratory tests, combined screening, and repeated screening. More research is also needed on reference standards with greater accuracy than RT-PCR.\nGiven the poor sensitivity of existing approaches, our findings point to the need for greater emphasis on other ways that may prevent transmission such as face coverings, physical distancing, quarantine, and adequate personal protective equipment for frontline workers.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How confident are we in the results of the studies?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our confidence in these findings is limited because most studies did not describe their screening methods clearly, some found very few cases of infections and the types of participants and settings varied greatly, making it difficult to judge whether the results apply broadly." } ]
query-laysum	5953	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMotion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving visual environments. The most common symptoms are nausea and vomiting. Antihistamines have been used in the management of motion sickness for decades, however studies have shown conflicting results regarding their efficacy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of antihistamines in the prevention and treatment of motion sickness in adults and children.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 7 December 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) in susceptible adults and children in whom motion sickness was induced under natural conditions such as air, sea and land transportation. We also included studies in which motion sickness was induced under experimental conditions (analysed separately). Antihistamines were included regardless of class, route or dosage and compared to no treatment, placebo or any other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any motion sickness symptoms; 2) the proportion of susceptible participants who experienced a reduction or resolution of existing symptoms. Secondary outcomes were 1) physiological measures (heart rate, core temperature and gastric tachyarrhythmia (electrogastrography)) and 2) adverse effects (sedation, impaired cognition, blurred vision). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs (658 participants). Studies were conducted across seven countries, with an overall age range of 16 to 55 years. Motion sickness was induced naturally in six studies and experimentally in four studies (rotating chair). All the naturally induced studies only evaluated first-generation antihistamines (cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate). Risk of bias across the studies varied, with mostly low risk for random sequence generation and allocation concealment, and mostly high risk for selective reporting. Only the experimentally induced studies measured physiological parameters and only the naturally induced studies evaluated adverse effects. There were no studies that clearly assessed the paediatric population.\nAntihistamines versus placebo or no treatment\nAntihistamines are probably more effective than placebo at preventing motion sickness symptoms under natural conditions (symptoms prevented: 25% placebo; 40% antihistamines) (risk ratio (RR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.66; 3 studies; 240 participants) (moderate-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under experimental conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.83; 2 studies; 62 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms.\nAntihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia under experimental conditions (mean difference (MD) -2.2, 95% CI -11.71 to 7.31; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to placebo, antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation (sedation: 44% placebo; 66% antihistamines) (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.02; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); they may result in little or no difference in blurred vision (blurred vision: 12.5% placebo; 14% antihistamines) (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.48; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); and they may result in little or no difference in terms of impaired cognition (impaired cognition: 33% placebo; 29% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty).\nAntihistamines versus scopolamine\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under natural conditions when compared to scopolamine (symptoms prevented: 81% scopolamine; 71% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16; 2 studies; 71 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies were performed under experimental conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms.\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on heart rate under natural conditions (narrative report, 1 study; 20 participants; \"No difference in pulse frequency\"; very low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to scopolamine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on sedation (sedation: 21% scopolamine; 30% antihistamines) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.07 to 9.25; 2 studies; 90 participants) (very low-certainty) and on blurred vision (narrative report: not a significant difference; 1 study; 51 participants; very low-certainty). No studies evaluated impaired cognition.\nAntihistamines versus antiemetics\nAntihistamines may result in little or no difference in the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions (MD -0.20, 95% CI -10.91 to 10.51; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). The evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. No studies assessed the effects of antihistamines versus antiemetics under natural conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms.\nAntihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. No studies evaluated sedation, impaired cognition or blurred vision.\nOne study reported physiological data for this outcome, evaluating gastric tachyarrhythmia specifically. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants; low-certainty evidence). This evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect.\nAntihistamines versus acupuncture\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effects of antihistamines on the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions when compared to acupuncture (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.57; 1 study; 100 participants) (very low-certainty). This study did not assess the prevention of motion sickness under natural conditions, nor the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. There was no study performed under natural conditions.\nPhysiological measures and adverse effects were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is probably a reduction in the risk of developing motion sickness symptoms under naturally occurring conditions of motion when using first-generation antihistamines, in motion sickness-susceptible adults, compared to placebo. Antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation when compared to placebo. No studies evaluated the treatment of existing motion sickness, and there are few data on the effect of antihistamines in children. The evidence for all other outcomes and comparisons (versus scopolamine, antiemetics and acupuncture) was of low or very low certainty and we are therefore uncertain about these effects of antihistamines.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Antihistamines versus scopolamine\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of antihistamines in the prevention of motion sickness or their ability to make one drowsy when compared to scopolamine under natural conditions." } ]
query-laysum	5954	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn the perioperative period, dexamethasone is widely and effectively used for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), for pain management, and to facilitate early discharge after ambulatory surgery.\nLong-term treatment with steroids has many side effects, such as adrenal insufficiency, increased infection risk, hyperglycaemia, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and development of diabetes mellitus. However, whether a single steroid load during surgery has negative effects during the postoperative period has not yet been studied.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of a steroid load of dexamethasone on postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing, and blood glucose change in adult surgical patients (with planned subgroup analysis of patients with and without diabetes).\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for relevant articles on 29 January 2018. We searched without language or date restriction two clinical trial registries to identify ongoing studies, and we handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications to identify all eligible trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomized controlled trials comparing an incidental steroid load of dexamethasone versus a control intervention for adult patients undergoing surgery. We required that studies include a follow-up of 30 days for proper assessment of the number of postoperative infections, delayed wound healing, and the glycaemic response.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data from relevant studies, and assessed all included studies for bias. We resolved differences by discussion and pooled included studies in a meta-analysis. We calculated Peto odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. Our primary outcomes were postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing, and glycaemic response within 24 hours. We created a funnel plot for the primary outcome postoperative (wound or systemic) infection. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included in the meta-analysis 37 studies that included adults undergoing a large variety of surgical procedures (i.e. abdominal surgery, cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, and orthopaedic surgery). We excluded one previously included study, as this study was recently retracted. Age range of participants was 18 to 80 years. There is probably little or no difference in the risk of postoperative (wound or systemic) infection with dexamethasone compared with no treatment, placebo, or active control (ramosetron, ondansetron, or tropisetron) (Peto OR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.27; 4603 participants, 26 studies; I² = 32%; moderate-quality evidence). The effects of dexamethasone on delayed wound healing are unclear because the wide confidence interval includes both meaningful benefit and harm (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.43; 1072 participants, eight studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Dexamethasone may produce a mild increase in glucose levels among participants without diabetes during the first 12 hours after surgery (MD 13 mg/dL, 95% CI 6 to 21; 10 studies; 595 participants; I² = 50%; low-quality evidence). We identified two studies reporting on glycaemic response after dexamethasone in participants with diabetes within 24 hours after surgery (MD 32 mg/dL, 95% CI 15 to 49; 74 participants; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nA single dose of dexamethasone probably does not increase the risk for postoperative infection. It is uncertain whether dexamethasone has an effect on delayed wound healing in the general surgical population owing to imprecision in trial results. Participants with increased risk for delayed wound healing (e.g. participants with diabetes, those taking immunosuppressive drugs) were not included in the randomized studies reporting on delayed wound healing included in this meta-analysis; therefore our findings should be extrapolated to the clinical setting with caution. Furthermore, one has to keep in mind that dexamethasone induces a mild increase in glucose. For patients with diabetes, very limited evidence suggests a more pronounced increase in glucose. Whether this influences wound healing in a clinically relevant way remains to be established. Once assessed, the two studies awaiting classification and three that are ongoing may alter the conclusions of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The reviewers examined current evidence on the adverse side effects of short-term treatment with dexamethasone during surgery. They compared patients receiving dexamethasone to patients not receiving dexamethasone. They particularly looked at the number of infections after surgery and the number of wounds that did not heal well. Furthermore, as long-term treatment with steroids can lead to high blood sugar, they looked at the response of blood sugar within the first 24 hours postoperatively." } ]
query-laysum	5955	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIt has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19.\nObjectives\nTo update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes.\nMain results\nThis update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.\nThe mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.\nTwenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out.\nWe assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment.\nEfficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19\nAt day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nTocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nTocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nEfficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19\nThe evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28.\nEvidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale.\nAn additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.\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 are very confident that tocilizumab (a medicine that blocks interleukin-6 (IL-6)) reduces the number of hospitalized people who die from COVID-19 within 28 days of treatment. However, it probably results in little or no difference in clinical improvement (defined as leaving the hospital or improvement in COVID-19 symptoms).\nSarilumab probably results in little or no difference in clinical improvement.\nWe found few studies assessing the other IL-6-blocking medicines. We are, therefore, uncertain about their effects.\nA small number of studies have not published any results. These studies treated relatively low numbers of people and their results would not change our current findings." } ]
query-laysum	5956	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of substance use, both prescribed and non-prescribed, is increasing in many areas of the world. Substance use by women of childbearing age contributes to increasing rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) is a newer term describing the subset of NAS related to opioid exposure. Non-pharmacological care is the first-line treatment for substance withdrawal in newborns. Despite the widespread use of non-pharmacological care to mitigate symptoms of NAS, there is not an established definition of, and standard for, non-pharmacological care practices in this population. Evaluation of safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological practices could provide clear guidance for clinical practice.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological treatment of infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal on the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment for symptom management.\nComparison 1: in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal, does non-pharmacological treatment reduce the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment?\nComparison 2: in infants receiving pharmacological treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal, does concurrent non-pharmacological treatment reduce duration of pharmacological treatment, maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication, and length of hospitalization?\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; and CINAHL on 11 October 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials comparing single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions to no non-pharmacological treatment or different single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions. We assessed non-pharmacological interventions independently and in combination based on sufficient similarity in population, intervention, and comparison groups studied. We categorized non-pharmacological interventions as: modifying environmental stimulation, feeding practices, and support of the mother-infant dyad. We presented non-randomized studies identified in the search process narratively.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization and pharmacological treatment with one or more doses of opioid or sedative medication. Primary outcomes in infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization, length of pharmacological treatment with opioid or sedative medication, and maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication.\nMain results\nWe identified six RCTs (353 infants) in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated between 1975 and 2018. We identified no RCTs in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low to low. We also identified and excluded 34 non-randomized studies published between 2005 and 2018, including 29 in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated and five in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. We identified seven preregistered interventional clinical trials that may qualify for inclusion at review update when complete.\nOf the six RCTs, four studies assessed modifying environmental stimulation in the form of a mechanical rocking bed, prone positioning, non-oscillating waterbed, or a low-stimulation nursery; one study assessed feeding practices (comparing 24 kcal/oz to 20 kcal/oz formula); and one study assessed support of the maternal-infant dyad (tailored breastfeeding support).\nThere was no evidence of a difference in length of hospitalization in the one study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation (mean difference [MD) –1 day, 95% confidence interval [CI) –2.82 to 0.82; 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and the one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (MD –8.9 days, 95% CI –19.84 to 2.04; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies of feeding practices evaluated the length of hospitalization.\nThere was no evidence of a difference in use of pharmacological treatment in three studies of modifying environmental stimulation (typical risk ratio [RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 92 infants; low-certainty evidence), one study of feeding practices (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.33; 49 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence).\nReported secondary outcomes included neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, days to regain birth weight, and weight nadir. One study of support of the maternal-infant dyad reported NICU admission (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study of feeding practices reported days to regain birth weight (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI 2.76 to 0.56; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation reported weight nadir (MD –0.28, 95% CI –1.15 to 0.59; 194 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and one study of feeding practices reported weight nadir (MD –0.8, 95% CI –2.24 to 0.64; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns affects important clinical outcomes including length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment based on the six included studies. The outcomes identified for this review were of very low- to low-certainty evidence. Combined analysis was limited by heterogeneity in study design and intervention definitions as well as the number of studies. Many prespecified outcomes were not reported. Although caregivers are encouraged by experts to optimize non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns prior to initiating pharmacological care, we do not have sufficient evidence to inform specific clinical practices. Larger well-designed studies are needed to determine the effect of non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review included six RCTs that enrolled 353 opioid-exposed newborns. The studies were published between 1975 and 2018. We also identified seven ongoing studies that may qualify for inclusion at review update when complete.\nOf the six RCTs, four assessed changes to the environment to reduce stimulation or provide soothing. These studies examined the effect of a mechanical rocking bed, prone positioning (lying on tummy), non-oscillating waterbed, and a low-stimulation nursery. We are uncertain whether modifying environmental stimulation is associated with length of hospitalization based on one study with 30 infants. Modifying environmental stimulation may be associated with little or no difference in use of pharmacological treatment based on three studies with 92 infants. We are uncertain whether modifying environmental stimulation is associated with weight nadir (lowest weight recorded during birth hospitalization) based on one study with 194 infants.\nOne study assessed a change to the feeding type comparing higher-calorie formula to standard-calorie formula. We are uncertain whether feeding practices are associated with use of medicines, days to regain birth weight, or weight nadir based on one study with 46 infants.\nOne study assessed changes to support the mother with tailored breastfeeding support. We are uncertain whether support of the mother-infant dyad is associated with length of hospitalization, use of medicines, or neonatal intensive care unit admission based on one study with 14 infants.\nMany potential important effects were not reported, and others were not reported in all studies." } ]
query-laysum	5957	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe risk of maternal mortality and morbidity is higher after caesarean section than for vaginal birth. With increasing rates of caesarean section, it is important to minimise risks to the mother as much as possible. This review focused on different skin preparations to prevent infection. This is an update of a review last published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of different antiseptic agents, different methods of application, or different forms of antiseptic used for preoperative skin preparation for preventing postcaesarean infection.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials, evaluating any type of preoperative skin preparation (agents, methods or forms). We included studies presented only as abstracts, if there was enough information to assess risk of bias.\nComparisons of interest in this review were between: different antiseptic agents (e.g. alcohol, povidone iodine), different methods of antiseptic application (e.g. scrub, paint, drape), different forms of antiseptic (e.g. powder, liquid), and also between different packages of skin preparation including a mix of agents and methods, such as a plastic incisional drape, which may or may not be impregnated with antiseptic agents. We mainly focused on the comparison between different agents, with and without the use of drapes.\nOnly studies involving the preparation of the incision area were included. This review did not cover studies of preoperative handwashing by the surgical team or preoperative bathing.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed all potential studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, extracted the data and checked data for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 13 individually-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 6938 women who were undergoing caesarean section. Twelve trials (6916 women) contributed data to this review. The trial dates ranged from 1983 to 2016. Six trials were conducted in the USA, and the remainder in India, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, France, Denmark, and Indonesia.\nThe included studies were broadly at low risk of bias for most domains, although high risk of detection bias raised some specific concerns in a number of studies. Length of stay was only reported in one comparison.\nAntiseptic agents\nParachlorometaxylenol with iodine versus iodine alone\nWe are uncertain whether parachlorometaxylenol with iodine made any difference to the incidence of surgical site infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.99; 1 trial, 50 women), or endometritis (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; 1 trial, 50 women) when compared with iodine alone, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Adverse events (maternal or neonatal) were not reported.\nChlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone iodine\nModerate-certainty evidence suggested that chlorhexidine gluconate, when compared with povidone iodine, probably slightly reduces the incidence of surgical site infection (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 trials, 4323 women). This effect was still present in a sensitivity analysis after removing four trials at high risk of bias for outcome assessment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; 4 trials, 2037 women).\nLow-certainty evidence indicated that chlorhexidine gluconate, when compared with povidone iodine, may make little or no difference to the incidence of endometritis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.86; 3 trials, 2484 women). It is uncertain whether chlorhexidine gluconate reduces maternal skin irritation or allergic skin reaction (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46; 3 trials, 1926 women; very low certainty evidence).\nOne small study (60 women) reported reduced bacterial growth at 18 hours after caesarean section for women who had chlorhexidine gluconate preparation compared with women who had povidone iodine preparation (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.70).\nMethods\nDrape versus no drape\nThis comparison investigated the use of drape versus no drape, following preparation of the skin with antiseptics.\nLow-certainty evidence suggested that using a drape before surgery compared with no drape, may make little or no difference to the incidence of surgical site infection (RR 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.71; 3 trials, 1373 women), and probably makes little or no difference to the length of stay in the hospital (mean difference (MD) 0.10 days, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.46; 1 trial, 603 women; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial compared an alcohol scrub and iodophor drape with a five-minute iodophor scrub only, and reported no surgical site infection in either group (79 women, very-low certainty evidence). We were uncertain whether the combination of a one-minute alcohol scrub and a drape reduced the incidence of metritis when compared with a five-minute scrub, because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 9.16; 1 trial, 79 women). The studies did not report on adverse events (maternal or neonatal).\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests that preparing the skin with chlorhexidine gluconate before caesarean section is probably slightly more effective at reducing the incidence of surgical site infection in comparison to povidone iodine. For other outcomes examined there was insufficient evidence available from the included RCTs. Most of the evidence in this review was deemed to be very low or low certainty. This means that for most findings, our confidence in any evidence of an intervention effect is limited, and indicates the need for more high-quality research. Therefore, it is not yet clear what sort of skin preparation may be most effective for preventing postcaesarean surgical site infection, or for reducing other undesirable outcomes for mother and baby.\nWell-designed RCTs, with larger sample sizes are needed. High-priority questions include comparing types of antiseptic (especially iodine versus chlorhexidine), and application methods (scrubbing, swabbing, or draping). We found two studies that are ongoing; we will incorporate the results of these studies in future updates of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The available evidence from the trials that have been conducted was insufficient to tell us the best type of skin preparation for preventing surgical site infection following caesarean section. More high-quality research is needed. We found two studies that are still ongoing. We will incorporate the results of these studies into this review in future updates." } ]
query-laysum	5958	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPregnant women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) have increased rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term, because of increased perinatal mortality during the third trimester of pregnancy.\nThis review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included \"diabetic pregnant women\", which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) and a sister review focuses on women with gestational diabetes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth) at or near term gestation (37 to 40 weeks’ gestation) compared with an expectant approach, for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised trials (including those using a cluster-randomised design) and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) which compared planned birth, at or near term, with an expectant approach for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two of the review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias in included studies. We will also assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified no eligible published trials for inclusion in this review.\nWe did identify one randomised trial which examined whether expectant management reduced the incidence of caesarean birth in uncomplicated pregnancies of women with gestational diabetes (requiring insulin) and with pre-existing diabetes. However, published data from this trial does not differentiate between pre-existing and gestational diabetes, and therefore we excluded this trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn the absence of evidence, we are unable to reach any conclusions about the health outcomes associated with planned birth, at or near term, compared with an expectant approach for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.\nThis review demonstrates the urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for pregnant women with pre-existing (Type 1 or Type 2) diabetes compared with an expectant approach.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The aim of this Cochrane review was to find out if planning an elective birth at or near the term of pregnancy, compared to waiting for labour to start spontaneously, has an impact on the health of women with diabetes and the health of their babies. This review focuses on women who have diabetes before becoming pregnant (pre-existing diabetes). Elective birth is carried out either by induction of labour or caesarean section, and 'at or near term' means 37 to 40 weeks' gestation.\nTo answer this question, we searched for all relevant studies (date of search: 15 August 2017), with the aim of collecting and analysing them together." } ]
query-laysum	5959	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of death in dialysis patients, and strongly associated with fluid overload and hypertension. It is plausible that low dialysate [Na+] may decrease total body sodium content, thereby reducing fluid overload and hypertension, and ultimately reducing CV morbidity and mortality.\nObjectives\nThis review evaluated harms and benefits of using a low (< 138 mM) dialysate [Na+] for maintenance haemodialysis (HD) patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 7 August 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), both parallel and cross-over, of low (< 138 mM) versus neutral (138 to 140 mM) or high (> 140 mM) dialysate [Na+] for maintenance HD patients were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo investigators independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models, and results expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) or standardised MD (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 12 studies randomising 310 patients, with data available for 266 patients after dropout. All but one study evaluated a fixed concentration of low dialysate [Na+], and one profiled dialysate [Na+]. Three studies were parallel group, and the remaining nine cross-over. Of the latter, only two used a washout between intervention and control periods. Most studies were short-term with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3 (3, 8.5) weeks. Two were of a single HD session, and two of a single week's HD. Half of the studies were conducted prior to 2000, and five reported use of obsolete HD practices. Risks of bias in the included studies were often high or unclear, lowering confidence in the results.\nCompared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] had the following effects on \"efficacy\" endpoints: reduced interdialytic weight gain (10 studies: MD -0.35 kg, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.51; high certainty evidence); probably reduced predialysis mean arterial blood pressure (BP) (4 studies: MD -3.58 mmHg, 95% CI -5.46 to -1.69; moderate certainty evidence); probably reduced postdialysis mean arterial BP (MAP) (4 studies: MD -3.26 mmHg, 95% CI -1.70 to -4.82; moderate certainty evidence); probably reduced predialysis serum [Na+] (7 studies: MD -1.69 mM, 95% CI -2.36 to -1.02; moderate certainty evidence); may have reduced antihypertensive medication (2 studies: SMD -0.67 SD, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.28; low certainty evidence). Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] had the following effects on \"safety\" endpoints: probably increased intradialytic hypotension events (9 studies: RR 1.56, 95% 1.17 to 2.07; moderate certainty evidence); probably increased intradialytic cramps (6 studies: RR 1.77, 95% 1.15 to 2.73; moderate certainty evidence).\nCompared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] may make little or no difference to: intradialytic BP (2 studies: MD for systolic BP -3.99 mmHg, 95% CI -17.96 to 9.99; diastolic BP 1.33 mmHg, 95% CI -6.29 to 8.95; low certainty evidence); interdialytic BP (2 studies:, MD for systolic BP 0.17 mmHg, 95% CI -5.42 to 5.08; diastolic BP -2.00 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to 0.84; low certainty evidence); dietary salt intake (2 studies: MD -0.21g/d, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.06; low certainty evidence).\nDue to very low quality of evidence, it is uncertain whether low dialysate [Na+] changed extracellular fluid status, venous tone, arterial vascular resistance, left ventricular mass or volumes, thirst or fatigue. Studies did not examine cardiovascular or all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, or hospitalisation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is likely that low dialysate [Na+] reduces intradialytic weight gain and BP, which are effects directionally associated with improved outcomes. However, the intervention probably also increases intradialytic hypotension and reduces serum [Na+], effects that are associated with increased mortality risk. The effect of the intervention on overall patient health and well-being is unknown. Further evidence is needed in the form of longer-term studies in contemporary settings, evaluating end-organ effects in small-scale mechanistic studies using optimal methods, and clinical outcomes in large-scale multicentre RCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We are uncertain about whether low sodium in dialysis fluid improves overall health and well-being for people on haemodialysis, since there are a mixture of probably good and bad effects, and available research studies were not designed (or designed well-enough) to learn about effects of the intervention on the heart or on overall patient health and well-being. Larger and up-to-date definitive studies are needed to evaluate the medium to long-term effects of low sodium levels in dialysis fluid, and better inform clinical practice." } ]
query-laysum	5960	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEnhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.\nObjectives\nTo explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. \"Plus\" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.\nMain results\nIn total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist.\nOnly 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.\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": "Reducing health inequities, avoidable and unfair differences in health, has achieved international political importance and global endorsement. Decision-makers have cited a lack of equity considerations in systematic reviews, creating a need for guidance on the advantages and disadvantages of methods to assess effects on health equity in systematic reviews." } ]
query-laysum	5961	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIt is unclear whether blood pressure should be altered actively during the acute phase of stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1997, and previously updated in 2001 and 2008.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical effectiveness of altering blood pressure in people with acute stroke, and the effect of different vasoactive drugs on blood pressure in acute stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched in February 2014), the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews (CDSR) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (Ovid) (1974 to May 2014), Science Citation Index (ISI, Web of Science, 1981 to May 2014) and the Stroke Trials Registry (searched May 2014).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of interventions that aimed to alter blood pressure compared with control in participants within one week of acute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The review authors cross-checked data and resolved discrepancies by discussion to reach consensus. We obtained published and unpublished data where available.\nMain results\nWe included 26 trials involving 17,011 participants (8497 participants were assigned active therapy and 8514 participants received placebo/control). Not all trials contributed to each outcome. Most data came from trials that had a wide time window for recruitment; four trials gave treatment within six hours and one trial within eight hours. The trials tested alpha-2 adrenergic agonists (A2AA), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARA), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), nitric oxide (NO) donors, thiazide-like diuretics, and target-driven blood pressure lowering. One trial tested phenylephrine.\nAt 24 hours after randomisation oral ACEIs reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP, mean difference (MD) -8 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17 to 1) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP, MD -3 mmHg, 95% CI -9 to 2), sublingual ACEIs reduced SBP (MD -12.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -26 to 2) and DBP (MD -2, 95%CI -10 to 6), oral ARA reduced SBP (MD -1 mm Hg, 95% CI -3 to 2) and DBP (MD -1 mm Hg, 95% CI -3 to 1), oral beta blockers reduced SBP (MD -14 mm Hg; 95% CI -27 to -1) and DBP (MD -1 mm Hg, 95% CI -9 to 7), intravenous (iv) beta blockers reduced SBP (MD -5 mm Hg, 95% CI -18 to 8) and DBP (-5 mm Hg, 95% CI -13 to 3), oral CCBs reduced SBP (MD -13 mmHg, 95% CI -43 to 17) and DBP (MD -6 mmHg, 95% CI -14 to 2), iv CCBs reduced SBP (MD -32 mmHg, 95% CI -65 to 1) and DBP (MD -13, 95% CI -31 to 6), NO donors reduced SBP (MD -12 mmHg, 95% CI -19 to -5) and DBP (MD -3, 95% CI -4 to -2) while phenylephrine, non-significantly increased SBP (MD 21 mmHg, 95% CI -13 to 55) and DBP (MD 1 mmHg, 95% CI -15 to 16).\nBlood pressure lowering did not reduce death or dependency either by drug class (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05), stroke type (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05) or time to treatment (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05). Treatment within six hours of stroke appeared effective in reducing death or dependency (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99) but not death (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.26) at the end of the trial. Although death or dependency did not differ between people who continued pre-stroke antihypertensive treatment versus those who stopped it temporarily (worse outcome with continuing treatment, OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.24), disability scores at the end of the trial were worse in participants randomised to continue treatment (Barthel Index, MD -3.2, 95% CI -5.8, -0.6).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence that lowering blood pressure during the acute phase of stroke improves functional outcome. It is reasonable to withhold blood pressure-lowering drugs until patients are medically and neurologically stable, and have suitable oral or enteral access, after which drugs can than be reintroduced. In people with acute stroke, CCBs, ACEI, ARA, beta blockers and NO donors each lower blood pressure while phenylephrine probably increases blood pressure. Further trials are needed to identify which people are most likely to benefit from early treatment, in particular whether treatment started very early is beneficial.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In people who have just had a stroke (a sudden brain attack due to either blockage or rupture of an artery in the brain), very high and very low blood pressures may be harmful. Therefore, drugs that raise low blood pressure or lower high blood pressure might be beneficial. Up to 50% of people admitted with acute stroke are taking blood pressure tablets on hospital admission and it is not clear whether these medications should be continued or discontinued in the acute situation. This review looked at those trials that deliberately altered blood pressure or compared continuing or stopping blood pressure-lowering tablets taken before stroke." } ]
query-laysum	5962	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEndometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is medical therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) to reduce pain due to endometriosis. One of the adverse effects of GnRHas is a decreased bone mineral density. In addition to assessing the effect on pain, quality of life, most troublesome symptom and patients' satisfaction, the current review also evaluated the effect on bone mineral density and risk of adverse effects in women with endometriosis who use GnRHas versus other treatment options.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis and to determine the effects of GnRHas on bone mineral density of women with endometriosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the trial registries in May 2022 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared GnRHas with other hormonal treatment options, including analgesics, danazol, intra-uterine progestogens, oral or injectable progestogens, gestrinone and also GnRHas compared with no treatment or placebo. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with add-back therapy (hormonal or non-hormonal) or calcium-regulation agents were also included in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodology as recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes are relief of overall pain and the objective measurement of bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, quality of life, improvement in the most troublesome symptoms and patient satisfaction.\nDue to high risk of bias associated with some of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.\nMain results\nSeventy-two studies involving 7355 patients were included. The evidence was very low to low quality: the main limitations of all studies were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.\nTrials comparing GnRHas versus no treatment\nWe did not identify any studies.\nTrials comparing GnRHas versus placebo\nThere may be a decrease in overall pain, reported as pelvic pain scores (RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.24, 1 RCT, n = 87, low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea scores (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.16, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia scores (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 59, low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness scores (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.50, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. We are uncertain of the effect for pelvic induration, based on the results found after three months of treatment (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, 1 RCT, n = 81, low-certainty evidence). Besides, treatment with GnRHas may be associated with a greater incidence of hot flushes at three months of treatment (RR 3.08; 95% CI 1.89 to 5.01, 1 RCT, n = 100, low-certainty evidence).\nTrials comparing GnRHas versus danazol\nFor overall pain, for women treated with either GnRHas or danazol, a subdivision was made between pelvic tenderness, partly resolved and completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect on relief of overall pain, when a subdivision was made for overall pain (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.66 to 1.06, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic pain (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.66, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.69, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.77 to 0.37, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic induration (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.39, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.38, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. For pelvic pain (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and pelvic induration (MD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), the complaints may decrease slightly after treatment with GnRHas, compared to danazol, for six months of treatment.\nTrials comparing GnRHas versus analgesics\nWe did not identify any studies.\nTrials comparing GnRHas versus intra-uterine progestogens\nWe did not identify any low risk of bias studies.\nTrials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents\nThere may be a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months treatment with GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents for anterior-posterior spine (MD -7.00; 95% CI -7.53 to -6.47, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and lateral spine (MD -12.40; 95% CI -13.31 to -11.49, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor relief of overall pain, there may be a slight decrease in favour of treatment with GnRHas compared to placebo or oral or injectable progestogens. We are uncertain about the effect when comparing GnRHas with danazol, intra-uterine progestogens or gestrinone. For BMD, there may be a slight decrease when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to gestrinone. There was a bigger decrease of BMD in favour of GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. However, there may be a slight increase in adverse effects when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to placebo or gestrinone.\nDue to a very low to low certainty of the evidence, a wide range of outcome measures and a wide range of outcome measurement instruments, the results should be interpreted with caution.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are GnRHas?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "GnRHas are a group of drugs often used to treat endometriosis. GnRHas are a synthetic form of the hormone gonadorelin, released by the hypothalamus in the brain. They stimulate the pituitary gland in the brain to produce luteinising hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), both reproductive hormones. These reproductive hormones further stimulate the production of progesterone and oestrogen in the ovaries, the hormones that control your menstrual cycle.\nHowever, continued use of GnRHas results in a suppression of ovarian function and therefore reduces oestrogen and progesterone levels. This will in turn result in a decrease of endometrial tissue and therefore reduce complaints of endometriosis.\nBecause GnRHas temporarily stop the production of reproductive hormones, they mimic symptoms of menopause, including a decrease in bone mineral density (the amount of calcium and other minerals present in your bones)." } ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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