dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum
|
6264
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchiectasis is predominantly an acquired disease process that represents the end stage of a variety of unrelated pulmonary insults. It is defined as persistent irreversible dilatation and distortion of medium-sized bronchi. It has been suggested that with widespread use of high-resolution computed tomography, more bronchiectasis diagnoses are being made. Patients diagnosed with bronchiectasis frequently have difficulty expectorating sputum. Sputum therefore is retained in the lungs and may become infected, leading to further lung damage. Mucolytic agents target hypersecretion or changed physiochemical properties of sputum to make it easier to clear. One drug, recombinant human DNase, breaks down the DNA that is released at the site of infection by neutrophils.\nMucus clearance along with antimicrobial therapy remains an integral part of bronchiectasis management. Chest physiotherapy along with mucolytic agents is commonly used in practice without clear supportive evidence.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether ingested or inhaled mucolytics are effective in the treatment of patients with bronchiectasis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted experts in the field and drug companies. Searches were current as of June 2013.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of mucolytic treatment in people with bronchiectasis but not cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nData extraction was performed independently by two review authors. Study authors were contacted for confirmation.\nMain results\nFour trials (with a combined total of 528 adult participants) were included, but almost none of the data from these studies could be aggregated in a meta-analysis.\nOne trial (with 88 participants) compared bromhexine versus placebo. Compared with placebo, high doses of bromhexine with antibiotics eased difficulty in expectoration (mean difference (MD) -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.81 to -0.25 at 16 days); the quality of the evidence was rated as low. A reduction in sputum production was noted with bromhexine (MD -21.5%, 95% CI -38.9 to -4.1 at day 16); again the quality of the evidence was rated as low. No significant differences between bromhexine and placebo were observed with respect to reported adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 2.93; 95% CI 0.12 to 73.97), and again the quality of the evidence was rated as low.\nIn a single small, blinded but not placebo-controlled trial of older (> 55 years) participants with stable bronchiectasis and mucus hypersecretion, erdosteine combined with physiotherapy over a 15-day period improved spirometry and sputum purulence more effectively compared with physiotherapy alone. The spirometric improvement was small (MD 200 mL in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and 300 mL in forced vital capacity (FVC)) and was apparent only at day 15, not at earlier time points.\nThe remaining two studies (with a combined total of 410 participants) compared recombinant human DNase (RhDNase) versus placebo. These two studies were very different (one was a two-week study of 61 participants, and the other ran for 24 weeks and included 349 participants), and the opportunity for combining data from the two studies was very limited. Compared with placebo, recombinant human DNase showed no difference in FEV1 or FVC in the smaller study but showed a significant negative effect on FEV1 in the larger and longer study. For reported adverse events, no significant differences between recombinant human DNase and placebo were noted. In all of the above comparisons of recombinant human DNase versus placebo, the quality of the evidence was judged to be low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the harmful effects of recombinant human DNase in one trial and no evidence of benefit, this drug should be avoided in non–cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, except in the context of clinical trials. Evidence is insufficient to permit evaluation of the routine use of other mucolytics for bronchiectasis. High doses of bromhexine coupled with antibiotics may help with sputum production and clearance, but long-term data and robust clinical outcomes are lacking. Similarly, erdosteine may be a useful adjunct to physiotherapy in stable patients with mucus hypersecretion, but robust longer-term trials are required.\nGenerally, clinical trials in children on the use of various mucolytic agents are lacking. As the number of agents available on the market, such as RhDNase, acetylcysteine and bromhexine, is increasing, improvement of the evidence base is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Bronchiectasis is a lung condition that usually develops after a series of lung problems (such as childhood infections, problems in lung structure, tuberculosis and cystic fibrosis). A lot of mucus (phlegm) collects in the lungs, causing discomfort and the need to cough it up. The phlegm also collects bacteria, which can add to breathing difficulties. Mucolytic drugs break down phlegm, which can make it easier to cough up."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6265
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNewborn infants are more prone to seizures than older children and adults. The neuronal injury caused by seizures in neonates often results in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. There are several options for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in neonates. However, the ideal choice of first-, second- and third-line ASM is still unclear. Further, many other aspects of seizure management such as whether ASMs should be initiated for only-electrographic seizures and how long to continue the ASM once seizure control is achieved are elusive.\nObjectives\n1. To assess whether any ASM is more or less effective than an alternative ASM (both ASMs used as first-, second- or third-line treatment) in achieving seizure control and improving neurodevelopmental outcomes in neonates with seizures. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately.\n2. To assess maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy after achieving seizure control. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately.\n3. To assess treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos and three databases in May 2022 and June 2023. These searches were not limited other than by study design to trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included neonates with EEG-confirmed or clinically diagnosed seizures and compared (1) any ASM versus an alternative ASM, (2) maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy, and (3) treatment of clinical or EEG seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence interval (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 18 trials (1342 infants) in this review.\nPhenobarbital versus levetiracetam as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial)\nPhenobarbital is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after first loading dose (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.30; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and after maximal loading dose (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.50; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital when compared to levetiracetam on mortality before discharge (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.52; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), requirement of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.91; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.44; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.76; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months.\nPhenobarbital versus phenytoin as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial)\nWe are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital versus phenytoin on achieving seizure control after maximal loading dose of ASM (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.72; 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months.\nMaintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy in clinically diagnosed neonatal seizures (two trials)\nWe are uncertain about the effect of short-term maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy during the hospital stay (but discontinued before discharge) on the risk of repeat seizures before hospital discharge (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01; 373 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Maintenance therapy with ASM compared to no maintenance therapy may have little or no effect on mortality before discharge (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22; 373 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.61; 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.12; 108 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 14.72; 126 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nTreatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates (two trials)\nTreatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation (MD -1871.16, 95% CI -4525.05 to 782.73; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality before discharge (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.27; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.73; 35 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months.\nWe report data from the most important comparisons here; readers are directed to Results and Summary of Findings tables for all comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPhenobarbital as a first-line ASM is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after the first loading dose and after the maximal loading dose of ASM (moderate-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital + bumetanide may have little or no difference in achieving seizure control when compared to phenobarbital alone (low-certainty evidence). Limited data and very low-certainty evidence preclude us from drawing any reasonable conclusion on the effect of using one ASM versus another on other short- and long-term outcomes.\nIn neonates who achieve seizure control after the first loading dose of phenobarbital, maintenance therapy compared to no maintenance ASM may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality before discharge, mortality by 18 to 24 months, neurodevelopmental disability by 18 to 24 months and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence).\nIn neonates with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy, treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation, all-cause mortality before discharge and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence).\nAll findings of this review apply only to term and late preterm neonates.\nWe need well-designed RCTs for each of the three objectives of this review to improve the precision of the results. These RCTs should use EEG to diagnose seizures and should be adequately powered to assess long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. We need separate RCTs evaluating the choice of ASM in preterm infants.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are moderately confident that phenobarbital is better than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control. The confidence for the estimates of all other comparisons and outcomes is low to very low. More studies are needed to synthesise strong evidence on medications to treat seizures in newborns."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6266
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Use of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be a way of reducing pain. A previous version of this Cochrane Review found very low-certainty evidence on the benefits and harms of the intervention.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetic agents in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 19 January 2021 together with reference checking of studies retrieved. We also searched five online clinical trials registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials to 10 September 2021. We contacted study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe only considered randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, publication status, or relevance of outcome measure) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, for the review. We excluded non-randomised studies, and studies where the method of allocating participants to a treatment was not strictly random (e.g. date of birth, hospital record number, or alternation).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors collected the data independently. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, pain, return to activity and work, and non-serious adverse events. The analysis included both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevManWeb. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using predefined domains, graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, and presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.\nMain results\nEighty-five completed trials were included, of which 76 trials contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. This included a total of 4957 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (2803 participants) and control (2154 participants). Most trials only included participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy and those who were at low anaesthetic risk (ASA I and II). The most commonly used local anaesthetic agent was bupivacaine. Methods of instilling the local anaesthetic varied considerably between trials; this included location and timing of application. The control groups received 0.9% normal saline (69 trials), no intervention (six trials), or sterile water (two trials). One trial did not specify the control agent used. None of the trials provided information on follow-up beyond point of discharge from hospital. Only two trials were at low risk of bias. Seven trials received external funding, of these three were assessed to be at risk of conflicts of interest, a further 17 trials declared no funding.\nWe are very uncertain about the effect intraperitoneal local anaesthetic versus control on mortality; zero mortalities in either group (8 trials; 446 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.34); 13 trials; 988 participants; discharge on same day of surgery (RR 1.43; 95% CI 0.64 to 3.20; 3 trials; 242 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of hospital stay (MD −0.10 days; 95% CI −0.18 to −0.01; 12 trials; 936 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on health-related quality of life, return to normal activity or return to work.\nPain scores, as measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), were lower in the intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation group compared to the control group at both four to eight hours (MD −0.99 cm VAS; 95% CI −1.19 to −0.79; 57 trials; 4046 participants; low-certainty of evidence) and nine to 24 hours (MD −0.68 cm VAS; 95% CI −0.88 to −0.49; 52 trials; 3588 participants; low-certainty of evidence).\nIn addition, we found two trials that were still ongoing, and one trial that was completed but with no published results. All three trials are registered on the WHO trial register.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain about the effect estimate of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and proportion of patients discharged on the same day of surgery because the certainty of evidence was very low. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude an increase in adverse events. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of stay in hospital after surgery. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic may reduce pain at up to 24 hours for low-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be at low risk of systematic and random errors, should fully report mortality and side effects, and should focus on clinical outcomes such as quality of life.\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": "Between 10% and 20% of the Western population are affected by gallstones. Annually, 1% to 4% of those will develop symptoms. Removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy) is the main treatment of patients who develop symptomatic gallstones. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (keyhole surgery to remove of the gallbladder) is the preferred method of surgery. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered less painful than open surgery.\nPrevious systematic reviews have demonstrated that administration of local anaesthetic (drug that numbs part of the body) into the abdomen (tummy) is possibly effective and associated with low rates of serious adverse events. However, the evidence to support this is of very low quality. We carried out this review to update the evidence with recently published trials."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6267
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nManagement of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves long-acting bronchodilators including beta-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used. LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single combination inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of adding an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to combination long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD.\nSearch methods\nWe carried out searches using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (searched 20 September 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 December 2015) and MEDLINE (searched 15 December 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organisation (WHO) trials portal and pharmaceutical company clinical trials' databases up to 7 Janurary 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of three weeks' duration or longer which compared treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified a total of 586 records in our search. Following removal of duplicates, 386 abstracts were assessed for inclusion. Six studies were identified as potentially relevant; however, all failed to meet the inclusion criteria on full-text assessment or after contacting the corresponding author to clarify study characteristics.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are currently no studies published assessing the effect of ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD. As combination LABA/LAMA inhalers are now widely available, there is a need for well-designed RCTs to investigate whether ICS provides any added therapeutic benefit.\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": "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, is a common long-term lung disease often associated with smoking. Patients with COPD experience persistent symptoms including breathlessness, cough and phlegm production. COPD is commonly treated with a number of inhaled medications. These include long-acting bronchodilators (LABA and LAMA) that open (dilate) the airways; and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), which are medications that suppress inflammation in the airways. In some individuals with particularly persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations (episodes where their symptoms become worse), all three classes of these inhaled medications are used.\nLABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single combination inhalers. These combination inhalers have been found to improve adherence and patient outcomes. Presently, it is unclear whether using an ICS in addition to these new combination LABA/LAMA inhalers provides any additional therapeutic benefit or risk of side-effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6268
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCholera is a cause of acute watery diarrhoea which can cause dehydration and death if not adequately treated. It usually occurs in epidemics, and is associated with poverty and poor sanitation. Effective, cheap, and easy to administer vaccines could help prevent epidemics.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of oral cholera vaccines in preventing cases of cholera and deaths from cholera.\nSearch methods\nIn October 2010, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for relevant published and ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of oral cholera vaccines in healthy adults and children.\nData collection and analysis\nEach trial was assessed for eligibility and risk of bias by two authors working independently. Data was extracted by two independent reviewers and analysed using the Review Manager 5 software. Outcomes are reported as vaccine protective efficacy (VE) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nSeven large efficacy trials, four small artificial challenge studies, and 29 safety trials contributed data to this review.\nFive variations of a killed whole cell vaccine have been evaluated in large scale efficacy trials (four trials, 249,935 participants). The overall vaccine efficacy during the first year was 52% (95% CI 35% to 65%), and during the second year was 62% (95% CI 51% to 62%). Protective efficacy was lower in children aged less than 5 years; 38% (95% CI 20% to 53%) compared to older children and adults; 66% (95% CI 57% to 73%).\nOne trial of a killed whole cell vaccine amongst military recruits demonstrated 86% protective efficacy (95% CI 37% to 97%) in a small epidemic occurring within 4 weeks of the 2-dose schedule (one trial, 1426 participants). Efficacy data is not available beyond two years for the currently available vaccine formulations, but based on data from older trials is unlikely to last beyond three years.\nThe safety data available on killed whole cell vaccines have not demonstrated any clinically significant increase in adverse events compared to placebo.\nOnly one live attenuated vaccine has reached Phase III clinical evaluation and was not effective (one trial, 67,508 participants). Two new candidate live attenuated vaccines have demonstrated clinical effectiveness in small artificial challenge studies, but are still in development.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe currently available oral killed whole cell vaccines can prevent 50 to 60% of cholera episodes during the first two years after the primary vaccination schedule. The impact and cost-effectiveness of adopting oral cholera vaccines into the routine vaccination schedule of endemic countries will depend on the prevalence of cholera, the frequency of epidemics, and access to basic services providing rapid rehydration therapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is cholera and how do vaccines work?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cholera is a severe form of diarrhoea. People get cholera by drinking water or eating food that has been contaminated with the bacteria (Vibrio cholera). Some people only become mildly ill, but some become extremely unwell with watery diarrhoea and vomiting. These people can become dehydrated very quickly and if untreated 25% to 50% can die.\nThe disease spreads rapidly in poor communities, especially where there is no sanitation or a lack of clean water. In refugee camps or following natural disasters a cholera epidemic can kill many hundreds of people very quickly.\nOral cholera vaccines work by giving people a small dose of the cholera bacteria to swallow. This dose of bacteria has been killed or changed so that it does not cause diarrhoea but is still able to make the person immune to natural cholera. There are three oral cholera vaccines currently available."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6269
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatorenal syndrome is a potentially reversible renal failure associated with severe liver disease. The disease is relatively common among people with decompensated cirrhosis. Terlipressin is a drug that increases the blood flow to the kidneys by constricting blood vessels. The previous version of this systematic review found a potential beneficial effect of terlipressin on mortality and renal function in people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of terlipressin versus placebo/no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome.\nSearch methods\nWe identified eligible trials through searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded, and manual searches until 21 November 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving participants with cirrhosis and type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome allocated to terlipressin versus placebo or no intervention. We allowed co-administration with albumin administered to both comparison groups.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from trial reports and undertook correspondence with the authors. Primary outcomes were mortality, hepatorenal syndrome, and serious adverse events. We conducted sensitivity analyses of RCTs in which participants received albumin, subgroup analyses of participants with type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome, and Trial Sequential Analyses to control random errors. We reported random-effects meta-analyses with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias based on the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. We graded the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs with a total of 534 participants with cirrhosis and ascites. One RCT had a low risk of bias for mortality and a high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes. All included trials had a high risk of bias for non-mortality outcomes. In total, 473 participants had type 1 hepatorenal syndrome. Seven RCTs specifically evaluated terlipressin and albumin. Terlipressin was associated with a beneficial effect on mortality when including all RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; 534 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 10.3 people; low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis including all RCTs also found a beneficial effect of terlipressin. Additional analyses showed a beneficial effect of terlipressin and albumin on reversal of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.82; 510 participants; 8 RCTs; NNTB 4 people; low-quality evidence). Terlipressin increased the risk of serious cardiovascular adverse events (RR 7.26, 95% CI 1.70 to 31.05; 234 participants; 4 RCTs), but it had no effect on the risk of serious adverse events when analysed as a composite outcome (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; 534 participants; 9 RCTs; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 24.5 people; low-quality evidence). Non-serious adverse events were mainly gastrointestinal, including diarrhoea (RR 5.76, 95% CI 2.19 to 15.15; 240 participants; low-quality evidence) and abdominal pain (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.43; 294 participants; low-quality evidence).\nWe identified one ongoing trial on terlipressin versus placebo in participants with cirrhosis, ascites, and hepatorenal syndrome type 1.\nThree RCTs reported funding from a pharmaceutical company. The remaining trials did not report funding or did not receive funding from pharmaceutical companies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests that terlipressin may be associated with beneficial effects on mortality and renal function in people with cirrhosis and type 1 hepatorenal syndrome, but it is also associated with serious adverse effects. We downgraded the strength of the evidence due to methodological issues including bias control, clinical heterogeneity, and imprecision. Consequently, additional evidence is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "November 2016."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6270
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCongenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV), also known as clubfoot, is a common congenital orthopaedic condition characterised by an excessively turned-in foot (equinovarus) and high medial longitudinal arch (cavus). If left untreated it can result in long-term disability, deformity and pain. Interventions can be conservative (such as splinting or stretching) or surgical. Different treatments might be effective at different stages: at birth (initial presentation); when initial treatment does not work (resistant presentation); when the initial treatment works but the clubfoot returns (relapse/recurrent presentation); and when there has been no early treatment (neglected presentation). This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and last updated in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of any intervention for any type of CTEV in people of any age.\nSearch methods\nOn 28 May 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, AMED and Physiotherapy Evidence Database. We also searched for ongoing trials in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov (to May 2019). We checked the references of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating interventions for CTEV, including interventions compared to other interventions, sham intervention or no intervention. Participants were people of all ages with CTEV of either one or both feet.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the risks of bias in included trials and extracted the data. We contacted authors of included trials for missing information. We collected adverse event information from trials when it was available. When required we attempted to obtain individual patient data (IPD) from trial authors for re-analysis. If unit-of-analysis issues were present and IPD unavailable we did not report summary data,\nMain results\nWe identified 21 trials with 905 participants; seven trials were newly included for this update. Fourteen trials assessed initial cases of CTEV (560 participants), four trials assessed resistant cases (181 participants) and three trials assessed cases of unknown timing (153 participants). The use of different outcome measures prevented pooling of data for meta-analysis, even when interventions and participants were comparable. All trials displayed high or unclear risks of bias in three or more domains. Twenty trials provided data. Two trials reported on the primary outcome of function using a validated scale, but the data were not suitable for inclusion because of unit-of-analysis issues, as raw data were not available for re-analysis.\nWe were able to analyse data on foot alignment (Pirani score), a secondary outcome, from three trials in participants at initial presentation. The Pirani score is a scale ranging from zero to six, where a higher score indicates a more severe foot. At initial presentation, one trial reported that the Ponseti technique significantly improved foot alignment compared to the Kite technique. After 10 weeks of serial casting, the average total Pirani score of the Ponseti group was 1.15 points lower than that of the Kite group (mean difference (MD) −1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.32 to −0.98; 60 feet; low-certainty evidence). A second trial found the Ponseti technique to be superior to a traditional technique, with mean total Pirani scores of the Ponseti participants 1.50 points lower than after serial casting and Achilles tenotomy (MD −1.50, 95% CI −2.28 to −0.72; 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One trial found evidence that there may be no difference between casting materials in the Ponseti technique, with semi-rigid fibreglass producing average total Pirani scores 0.46 points higher than plaster of Paris at the end of serial casting (95% CI −0.07 to 0.99; 30 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe found no trials in relapsed or neglected cases of CTEV.\nA trial in which the type of presentation was not reported showed no evidence of a difference between an accelerated Ponseti and a standard Ponseti treatment in foot alignment. At the end of serial casting, the average total Pirani score in the accelerated group was 0.31 points higher than the standard group (95% CI −0.40 to 1.02; 40 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nNo trial assessed gait using a validated assessment. Health-related quality of life was reported in some trials but data were not available for re-analysis.\nThere is a lack of evidence for the addition of botulinum toxin A during the Ponseti technique, different types of major foot surgery or continuous passive motion treatment following major foot surgery. Most trials did not report on adverse events. Two trials found that further serial casting was more likely to correct relapse after Ponseti treatment than after the Kite technique, which more often required major surgery (risk differences 25% and 50%). In trials evaluating serial casting techniques, adverse events included cast slippage (needing replacement), plaster sores (pressure areas), and skin irritation. Adverse events following surgical procedures included infection and the need for skin grafting.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFrom the evidence available, the Ponseti technique may produce significantly better short-term foot alignment compared to the Kite technique. The certainty of evidence is too low for us to draw conclusions about the Ponseti technique compared to a traditional technique. An accelerated Ponseti technique may be as effective as a standard technique, but results are based on a single small comparative trial. When using the Ponseti technique semi-rigid fibreglass casting may be as effective as plaster of Paris. Relapse following the Kite technique more often led to major surgery compared to relapse following the Ponseti technique. We could draw no conclusions from other included trials because of the limited use of validated outcome measures and the unavailability of raw data. Future RCTs should address these issues.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results and certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our main measure of the success of treatment was function (how well the foot worked in everyday life). Two trials reported on function but data were not available to re-analyse.\nThree trials that compared Ponseti with other casting techniques in children treated at birth provided data that we could analyse on foot alignment. One found that foot position may be better after Ponseti plaster casting than after Kite plaster casting. In the second trial, the evidence was uncertain whether foot position was better after Ponseti plaster casting than after a traditional technique (another type of plaster casting). One trial found that weekly Ponseti casting may be as good as Ponseti plaster casting three times a week (accelerated Ponseti). This trial did not state at which stage the treatment was done. A third trial found that the Ponseti technique may have similar results when using plaster of Paris or semi-rigid fibreglass.\nNo trial assessed the quality of walking using a validated assessment. Two trials reported on the primary outcome of function using validated scales, but raw data were not available for analysis and the trials did not provide quality-of-life data that were suitable for reporting in the review.\nWe found no trials in relapsed or neglected clubfoot.\nA trial in which the type of presentation was not reported found that there may be no important difference between an accelerated Ponseti or standard Ponseti treatment in foot alignment.\nRelapse following the Kite technique more often required major surgery than relapse following the Ponseti technique. Data were not available to assess the results for adding botulinum toxin A, which temporarily weakens injected muscles, to the Ponseti treatment, using different types of plaster casts in the Ponseti treatment, different foot surgeries, or the treatment of relapsed or neglected clubfoot. Most trials did not report on harmful effects. When reported, harmful effects during plaster casting included casts slipping, plaster sores, and skin irritation. Harmful effects of infection and skin grafting were reported after surgery.\nThe searches for the review are up to date to May 2019."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6271
|
[
{
"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: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Tinidazole may be more effective than metronidazole for reducing clinical symptoms and may be associated with fewer adverse events. Combination therapy resulted in fewer parasitological failures than occurred with metronidazole alone. Evidence is insufficient to allow conclusions regarding the efficacy of other antiamoebic drugs. Better quality randomized trials using accurate diagnostic methods and standardized outcomes are needed to evaluate the efficacy of drugs for treating individuals with amoebic colitis."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6272
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDiabetes results in a rise in blood glucose above normal physiological levels; if untreated this may cause damage to many systems including the cardiovascular and renal systems. Pregnancy increases resistance to insulin action; for those women who have pre-gestational diabetes, this results in an increasing insulin requirement. There are several methods of administering insulin. Conventionally, insulin has been administered subcutaneously, formally referred to as intensive conventional treatment, but now more usually referred to as multiple daily injections (MDI). An alternative method of insulin administration is the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump (CSII).\nObjectives\nTo compare CSII with MDI of insulin for pregnant women with pre-existing and gestational diabetes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials comparing CSII with MDI for pregnant women with diabetes.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed studies and two review authors extracted data. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with the third author. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included five single-centre trials (undertaken in Italy) with 153 women and 154 pregnancies in this review.\nThere were no clear differences in the primary outcomes reported between CSII and MDI in the included trials: caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.77; three trials, 71 women, evidence graded very low), large-for-gestational age (RR 4.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 34.95; three trials, 73 infants; evidence graded very low), and perinatal mortality (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 14.32; four trials, 83 infants, evidence graded very low). Other primary outcomes were not reported in these trials (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, development of type 2 diabetes, composite outcome of serious neonatal outcomes, and neurosensory disability).\nThere was no clear evidence of differences in the maternal secondary outcomes: maternal weight gain during pregnancy, 24 hour mean blood glucose in each trimester, mean maternal HbA1c in each trimester, maternal hypoglycaemia, and maternal hyperglycaemia. The included studies did not report several GRADE outcomes: perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression, induction of labour. Many maternal secondary outcomes were also not reported.\nIn two trials, including a total of 61 infants, CSII was associated with an increase in mean birthweight compared with MDI (mean difference (MD) 220.56 g, 95% CI -2.09 g to 443.20 g; P = 0.05). However, the large CI including anything from a small reduction to an increase in mean birthweight and the lack of a difference in macrosomia rate (RR 3.20, CI 0.14 to 72.62; two trials, 61 infants) suggests uncertainty. Large-for-gestational age (see above), andsmall-for-gestational age also suggests uncertainty of effect. No significant differences were found in: gestation at delivery, preterm birth < 37 weeks' gestation, preterm birth < 32 weeks' gestation, neonatal hypoglycaemia (evidence graded very low),respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia, and fetal anomaly. There were no data reported on many important infant outcomes, including the GRADE outcomes adiposity and diabetes. There was no follow-up of infants in childhood or adulthood, so longer-term outcomes were not reported.\nThe only outcome reported for use of health service resources wasmaternal days hospitalised, which did not show a difference between groups in the small number of women included (MD 9.40, CI -6.04 to 24.84; one trial, 10 women).\nThe methods used by the trials were poorly reported, for example although blinding of participants and clinicians regarding intervention allocation is impossible, it is possible to blind assessors and this along with other aspects of trial methods was not reported, which means that the trials are at an unclear or high risk of bias. We do not know if the women who participated were representative, and therefore if the results can be generalised. Most GRADE outcomes were not reported. For the GRADE outcomes that were reported, our assessment was that the evidence is very low quality (caesarean section, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, andneonatal hypoglycaemia). This was due to design limitations in the included trials, small sample sizes in the trials contributing data, wide CIs crossing both the line of no effect and the line of appreciable benefit and/or harm, and often few events. We are therefore uncertain whether CSII or MDI improves outcomes for pregnant women with diabetes and their infants, and the results of further studies may differ substantially from those presented in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence to support the use of one particular form of insulin administration over another for pregnant women with diabetes. There are only a small number of trials appropriate for meta-analysis, a small number of women included and questionable generalisability of the trial population.\nPump technology has progressed since these trials were undertaken. Well-designed randomised trials are required to evaluate comparisons such as patch pumps against MDI and more conventional CSII against MDI. These trials should be adequately powered to assess the effect of interventions, and report the core set of outcomes used in Cochrane reviews of diabetes in pregnancy. Trials to assess the effects of pumps on birthweight and macrosomia rates are needed. It would be beneficial for future trials to undertake longer-term follow-up of participants and their infants, assess women's preferences, and conduct an economic evaluation.\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": "Diabetes is a condition in which glucose (sugar) in the blood is too high because the body does not respond to insulin or not enough insulin is made. Insulin is a hormone made by the pancreas, which allows glucose to enter the cells where it is used as fuel by the body.\nControlling blood sugar levels is important because levels that are too high or too low can affect the brain and other organs of the body. Poor blood sugar control in pregnant women with diabetes can lead to large babies who may then have a difficult birth. It also increases the chance of abnormalities in the baby, miscarriage, or stillbirth.\nTraditionally, insulin is given as multiple daily injections (MDI), however a small pump can continuously give insulin through a fine tube under the skin (CSII)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6273
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.\nMethods\nThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.\nMain results\nSeven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP.\nAcute LBP\nParacetamol\nThere was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33).\nNSAIDs\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18).\nMuscle relaxants and benzodiazepines\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98).\nOpioids\nNone of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP.\nAntidepressants\nNo evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP.\nChronic LBP\nParacetamol\nNo evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP.\nNSAIDs\nThere was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention).\nMuscle relaxants and benzodiazepines\nThere was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57).\nOpioids\nThere was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26).\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25).\nThere was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11).\nAntidepressants\nThere was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We have reduced confidence in the evidence because one review was of moderate quality and one review was of low quality and six reviews were published more than five years ago. There is a need to update these Cochrane Reviews following recommended guidance.\nFor acute LBP, we are at least moderately confident about the effects of paracetamol, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants on short-term pain and function. For other time points and other medicines (e.g. opioids, antidepressants), we have no evidence to inform treatment decisions.\nFor chronic LBP, we are at least moderately confident about the effects of paracetamol and opioids on short-term pain and function but less confident about the effects of other medicines (e.g. NSAIDs, antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and benzodiazepines). Factors that decreased confidence in findings included flaws in how the studies were designed (patients were not assigned to treatments randomly, allocation to treatment assignment was not concealed, patients were not compliant to their prescribed treatment), not having enough studies or participants to be certain about the results, and variations between treatment delivery.\nThe definition and reporting of unwanted effects for each medicine within each review was limited, making it difficult to assess safety for each pharmacological intervention. There remains clear gaps in the evidence base for the safety of medicines for LBP."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6274
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis updated Cochrane Review of reminiscence therapy (RT) for dementia was first published in 1998, and last updated in 2005. RT involves the discussion of memories and past experiences with other people using tangible prompts such as photographs or music to evoke memories and stimulate conversation. RT is implemented widely in a range of settings using a variety of formats.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of RT on people living with dementia and their carers, taking into account differences in its implementation, including setting (care home, community) and modality (group, individual).\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS (the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register) on 6 April 2017 using the search term 'reminiscence.'\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials of RT for dementia in which the duration of the intervention was at least four weeks (or six sessions) and that had a 'no treatment' or passive control group. Outcomes of interest were quality of life (QoL), cognition, communication, behaviour, mood and carer outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors (LOP and EF) independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from all sufficiently similar studies reporting on each outcome. We undertook subgroup analysis by setting (community versus care home) and by modality (individual versus group). We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 22 studies involving 1972 people with dementia. Meta-analyses included data from 16 studies (1749 participants). Apart from six studies with risk of selection bias, the overall risk of bias in the studies was low.\nOverall, moderate quality evidence indicated RT did not have an important effect on QoL immediately after the intervention period compared with no treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.33; I2 = 59%; 8 studies; 1060 participants). Inconsistency between studies mainly related to the study setting. There was probably a slight benefit in favour of RT in care homes post-treatment (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; 3 studies; 193 participants), but little or no difference in QoL in community settings (867 participants from five studies).\nFor cognitive measures, there was high quality evidence for a very small benefit, of doubtful clinical importance, associated with reminiscence at the end of treatment (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.23; 14 studies; 1219 participants), but little or no difference at longer-term follow-up. There was a probable slight improvement for individual reminiscence and for care homes when analysed separately, but little or no difference for community settings or for group studies. Nine studies included the widely used Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a cognitive measure, and, on this scale, there was high quality evidence for an improvement at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) 1.87 points, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.20; 437 participants). There was a similar effect at longer-term follow-up, but the quality of evidence for this analysis was low (1.8 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 3.65).\nFor communication measures, there may have been a benefit of RT at the end of treatment (SMD -0.51 points, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.05; I2 = 62%; negative scores indicated improvement; 6 studies; 249 participants), but there was inconsistency between studies, related to the RT modality. At follow-up, there was probably a slight benefit of RT (SMD -0.49 points, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.21; 4 studies; 204 participants). Effects were uncertain for individual RT, with very low quality evidence available. For reminiscence groups, evidence of moderate quality indicated a probable slight benefit immediately (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.06; 4 studies; 153 participants), and at later follow-up. Community participants probably benefited at end of treatment and follow-up. For care home participants, the results were inconsistent between studies and, while there may be an improvement at follow-up, at the end of treatment the evidence quality was very low and effects were uncertain.\nOther outcome domains examined for people with dementia included mood, functioning in daily activities, agitation/irritability and relationship quality. There were no clear effects in these domains. Individual reminiscence was probably associated with a slight benefit on depression scales, although its clinical importance was uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.06; 4 studies; 131 participants). We found no evidence of any harmful effects on people with dementia.\nWe also looked at outcomes for carers, including stress, mood and quality of relationship with the person with dementia (from the carer's perspective). We found no evidence of effects on carers other than a potential adverse outcome related to carer anxiety at longer-term follow-up, based on two studies that had involved the carer jointly in reminiscence groups with people with dementia. The control group carers were probably slightly less anxious (MD 0.56 points, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.30; 464 participants), but this result is of uncertain clinical importance, and is also consistent with little or no effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of reminiscence interventions are inconsistent, often small in size and can differ considerably across settings and modalities. RT has some positive effects on people with dementia in the domains of QoL, cognition, communication and mood. Care home studies show the widest range of benefits, including QoL, cognition and communication (at follow-up). Individual RT is associated with probable benefits for cognition and mood. Group RT and a community setting are associated with probable improvements in communication. The wide range of RT interventions across studies makes comparisons and evaluation of relative benefits difficult. Treatment protocols are not described in sufficient detail in many publications. There have been welcome improvements in the quality of research on RT since the previous version of this review, although there still remains a need for more randomised controlled trials following clear, detailed treatment protocols, especially allowing the effects of simple and integrative RT to be compared.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to find out what effect reminiscence therapy (RT) has on people with dementia. In particular, we were interested in effects on quality of life, communication, cognition (the general ability to think and remember), mood, daily activities and relationships. We were also interested in any effects on carers."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6275
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFractures of the distal femur (the far end of the thigh bone just above the knee) are a considerable cause of morbidity. Various different surgical and non-surgical treatments have been used in the management of these injuries but the best treatment remains unknown.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in adults comparing interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur. Interventions included surgical implants (retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN), fixed-angle devices, non-locking plate fixation, locking plate, internal fixation, distal femoral replacement, mono-axial plates, poly-axial plates and condylar buttress plates) and non-surgical management.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our critical outcomes were validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), direct adverse events, participant-reported quality of life (QoL) and pain scores. Our other important outcomes were adverse events indirectly related to intervention, symptomatic non-union, malunion and resource use. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies with 753 participants: 13 studies compared different surgical interventions, and one study compared surgical with non-surgical management. Here, we report the effects for RIMN compared with locking plates. Three studies (221 participants) reported this comparison; it included the largest study population and these are the two most commonly used devices in contemporary orthopaedic trauma practice.\nStudies used three different tools to assess PROMs. We found very-low certainty evidence for lower Disability Rating Index scores after RIMN at short-term follow-up favouring RIMN (mean difference (MD) −21.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) −38.16 to −5.64; 1 study, 12 participants) and low-certainty evidence of little or no difference at long-term follow-up (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.22, 95% CI −0.50 to 0.06; 2 studies, 198 participants). Re-expressing the SMD of the long-term follow-up data to Knee Society Score (KSS) used by one study found no clinical benefit of RIMN, based on a minimal clinically important difference of 9 points (MD 2.47, 95% CI −6.18 to 0.74). The effect on QoL was very uncertain at four months (MD 0.01, 95% CI −0.42 to 0.44; 1 study, 14 participants) and one year (MD 0.10, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.21; 1 study, 156 participants); this evidence was very low certainty.\nFor direct adverse events, studies reported reoperation, loss of fixation, superficial and deep infection, haematoma formation and implant loosening. Effects for all events were imprecise with the possibility of benefit or harm for both treatments. We considered reoperation the most clinically relevant. There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in reoperation between the two implants (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.00; 1 study, 104 participants).\nNo studies reported pain.\nFor other important outcomes, we noted that people treated with RIMN may be more likely to have varus/valgus deformity (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.37; 1 study, 33 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we found no evidence of any important differences between treatments in terms of bony union, indirect adverse events, or resource use.\nOther comparisons of surgical interventions included in the review were: RIMN versus single fixed-angle device (3 studies, 175 participants); RIMN versus non-locking plate fixation (1 study, 18 participants); locking plate versus single fixed-angle device (2 studies, 130 participants); internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement (1 study, 23 participants); mono-axial plates versus poly-axial plates (2 studies, 67 participants); mono-axial plate versus condylar buttress plate (1 study, 78 participants). The certainty of the evidence for outcomes in these comparisons was low to very low, and most effect estimates were imprecise.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review highlights the major limitations of the available evidence concerning current treatment interventions for fractures of the distal femur. The currently available evidence is incomplete and insufficient to inform clinical practice. Priority should be given to randomised controlled trials comparing contemporary treatments for people with fractures of the distal femur. At a minimum, these should report validated patient-reported functional and quality-of-life outcomes at one and two years, with an agreed core outcome set. All trials should be reported in full using the CONSORT guidelines.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Surgical versus non-surgical management (one study, 42 participants)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "there are few data reported for this comparison. However, there were more complications such as pressures sores due to the long duration of not moving associated with the non-surgical group, who stayed on average one month longer in hospital."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6276
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAccording to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015, lower respiratory tract infection is the leading cause of infectious disease death, and the fifth most common cause of death overall. Vitamin C has a role in modulating resistance to infectious agents, therefore vitamin C supplementation may be important in preventing and treating pneumonia.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of vitamin C supplementation to prevent and treat pneumonia in children and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, and two trials registers to 4 March 2020. We also checked references to identify additional studies. We did not apply any publication status or language filters.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (studies using allocation methods that are not random, e.g. date of birth, medical record number) assessing the role of vitamin C supplementation in the prevention and treatment of pneumonia in children and adults compared to control or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included five studies in the review and identified two ongoing studies. The five included studies involved a total of 2655 participants; two studies were RCTs and three were quasi-RCTs. The included studies were conducted in one high-income country (USA) and three lower-middle-income countries (Bangladesh and Pakistan). Three studies were conducted in hospital inpatient settings, one in school, and one in a military training centre. Three studies included children under five years of age, one study included school-aged children, and one study included adult participants. Two studies assessed the effect of vitamin C supplementation for pneumonia prevention; and three studies assessed the effect of vitamin C supplementation as an adjunct to pneumonia treatment. For pneumonia prevention, the included studies provided supplementation in doses of 1 g daily for 14 weeks, 2 g daily for 8 weeks, and 2 g daily for 14 weeks. For pneumonia treatment, the included studies provided vitamin C supplementation in doses of 125 mg daily and 200 mg daily until the symptoms resolved or discharge, as an adjunct to the pneumonia treatment. Overall, the included studies were judged to be at either high or unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding; and the evidence certainty was very low.\nTwo studies assessed the effect of vitamin C supplementation for pneumonia prevention; we judged the certainty of the evidence as very low. We are uncertain about the effect of vitamin C supplementation on pneumonia incidence and adverse events (urticaria). None of the included studies reported other primary outcomes (pneumonia prevalence and mortality) or any of the secondary outcomes.\nThree studies assessed the effect of vitamin C supplementation as an adjunct to pneumonia treatment; we judged the certainty of the evidence as very low. We are uncertain of the effect of vitamin C supplementation on duration of illness and hospitalisation. None of the included studies reported other primary or secondary outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the small number of included studies and very low certainty of the existing evidence, we are uncertain of the effect of vitamin C supplementation for the prevention and treatment of pneumonia. Further good-quality studies are required to assess the role of vitamin C supplementation in the prevention and treatment of pneumonia.\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 judged the included studies to be at overall high or unclear risk of bias. The evidence certainty was very low due to study limitations, variations amongst the studies, small sample sizes and uncertainty of estimates."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6277
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe treatment of people with pancreatic necrosis differs from that of people with oedematous pancreatitis. It is important to know the diagnostic accuracy of serum C-reactive protein (CRP), serum procalcitonin, and serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) as a triage test for the detection of pancreatic necrosis in people with acute pancreatitis, so that an informed decision can be made as to whether the person with pancreatic necrosis needs further investigations such as computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and treatment for pancreatic necrosis started. There is currently no standard clinical practice, although CRP, particularly an increasing trend of CRP, is often used as a triage test to determine whether the person requires further imaging. There is also currently no systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy of CRP, procalcitonin, and LDH for the diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis in people with acute pancreatitis.\nObjectives\nTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of CRP, procalcitonin, or LDH (index test), either alone or in combination, in the diagnosis of necrotising pancreatitis in people with acute pancreatitis and without organ failure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR HTA and DARE), and other databases until March 2017. We searched the references of the included studies to identify additional studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. We also performed a 'related search' and 'citing reference' search in MEDLINE and Embase.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all studies that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of CRP, procalcitonin, and LDH for the diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis in people with acute pancreatitis using the following reference standards, either alone or in combination: radiological features of pancreatic necrosis (contrast-enhanced CT or MRI), surgeon's judgement of pancreatic necrosis during surgery, or histological confirmation of pancreatic necrosis. Had we found case-control studies, we planned to exclude them because they are prone to bias; however, we did not locate any. Two review authors independently identified the relevant studies from the retrieved references.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data, including methodological quality assessment, from the included studies. As the included studies reported CRP, procalcitonin, and LDH on different days of admission and measured at different cut-off levels, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis using the bivariate model as planned. We have reported the sensitivity, specificity, post-test probability of a positive and negative index test along with 95% confidence interval (CI) on each of the different days of admission and measured at different cut-off levels.\nMain results\nA total of three studies including 242 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review. One study reported the diagnostic performance of CRP for two threshold levels (> 200 mg/L and > 279 mg/L) without stating the day on which the CRP was measured. One study reported the diagnostic performance of procalcitonin on day 1 (1 day after admission) using a threshold level of 0.5 ng/mL. One study reported the diagnostic performance of CRP on day 3 (3 days after admission) using a threshold level of 140 mg/L and LDH on day 5 (5 days after admission) using a threshold level of 290 U/L. The sensitivities and specificities varied: the point estimate of the sensitivities ranged from 0.72 to 0.88, while the point estimate of the specificities ranged from 0.75 to 1.00 for the different index tests on different days of hospital admission. However, the confidence intervals were wide: confidence intervals of sensitivities ranged from 0.51 to 0.97, while those of specificities ranged from 0.18 to 1.00 for the different tests on different days of hospital admission. Overall, none of the tests assessed in this review were sufficiently accurate to suggest that they could be useful in clinical practice.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe paucity of data and methodological deficiencies in the studies meant that it was not possible to arrive at any conclusions regarding the diagnostic test accuracy of the index test because of the uncertainty of the results. Further well-designed diagnostic test accuracy studies with prespecified index test thresholds of CRP, procalcitonin, LDH; appropriate follow-up (for at least two weeks to ensure that the person does not have pancreatic necrosis, as early scans may not indicate pancreatic necrosis); and clearly defined reference standards (of surgical or radiological confirmation of pancreatic necrosis) are important to reliably determine the diagnostic accuracy of CRP, procalcitonin, and LDH.\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 pancreas is an organ in the abdomen (tummy) that secretes several digestive enzymes (substances that break down the food that we eat) into the pancreatic ductal system, which empties into the small bowel. The pancreas also contains the islets of Langerhans, which secrete several hormones including insulin (which helps regulate blood sugar). Acute pancreatitis is a sudden inflammation of the pancreas that can lead to destruction of the pancreas (pancreatic necrosis). The treatment of people with pancreatic necrosis differs from that of people without pancreatic necrosis. Blood tests such as C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) may be used to find out whether a person with acute pancreatitis has pancreatic necrosis. This is usually followed by CT scan to confirm that the person has pancreatic necrosis. If the person is found to have pancreatic necrosis, the intensity of care is increased and additional treatments are performed as required. At present it is unclear whether measuring the levels of CRP, procalcitonin, or LDH is useful in identifying pancreatic necrosis."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6278
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the world, however lung cancer screening has not been implemented in most countries at a population level. A previous Cochrane Review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography (CXR) or sputum cytology in reducing lung cancer-related mortality, however there has been increasing evidence supporting screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).\nObjectives\nTo determine whether screening for lung cancer using LDCT of the chest reduces lung cancer-related mortality and to evaluate the possible harms of LDCT screening.\nSearch methods\nWe performed the search in collaboration with the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group and included the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, current issue), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase in our search. We also searched the clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We did not impose any restriction on language of publication. The search was performed up to 31 July 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening using LDCT and reporting mortality or harm outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors were involved in independently assessing trials for eligibility, extraction of trial data and characteristics, and assessing risk of bias of the included trials using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were lung cancer-related mortality and harms of screening. We performed a meta-analysis, where appropriate, for all outcomes using a random-effects model. We only included trials in the analysis of mortality outcomes if they had at least 5 years of follow-up. We reported risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used the I2 statistic to investigate heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included 11 trials in this review with a total of 94,445 participants. Trials were conducted in Europe and the USA in people aged 40 years or older, with most trials having an entry requirement of ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history (e.g. 1 pack of cigarettes/day for 20 years or 2 packs/day for 10 years etc.). One trial included male participants only. Eight trials were phase three RCTs, with two feasibility RCTs and one pilot RCT. Seven of the included trials had no screening as a comparison, and four trials had CXR screening as a comparator. Screening frequency included annual, biennial and incrementing intervals. The duration of screening ranged from 1 year to 10 years. Mortality follow-up was from 5 years to approximately 12 years.\nNone of the included trials were at low risk of bias across all domains. The certainty of evidence was moderate to low across different outcomes, as assessed by GRADE.\nIn the meta-analysis of trials assessing lung cancer-related mortality, we included eight trials (91,122 participants), and there was a reduction in mortality of 21% with LDCT screening compared to control groups of no screening or CXR screening (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87; 8 trials, 91,122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were probably no differences in subgroups for analyses by control type, sex, geographical region, and nodule management algorithm. Females appeared to have a larger lung cancer-related mortality benefit compared to males with LDCT screening. There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality (including lung cancer-related) of 5% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 8 trials, 91,107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nInvasive tests occurred more frequently in the LDCT group (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.80; 3 trials, 60,003 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, analysis of 60-day postoperative mortality was not significant between groups (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials, 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nFalse-positive results and recall rates were higher with LDCT screening compared to screening with CXR, however there was low-certainty evidence in the meta-analyses due to heterogeneity and risk of bias concerns. Estimated overdiagnosis with LDCT screening was 18%, however the 95% CI was 0 to 36% (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.36; 5 trials, 28,656 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nFour trials compared different aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using various measures. Anxiety was pooled from three trials, with participants in LDCT screening reporting lower anxiety scores than in the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.27; 3 trials, 8153 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere were insufficient data to comment on the impact of LDCT screening on smoking behaviour.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence supports a reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of LDCT for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations (those over the age of 40 with a significant smoking exposure). However, there are limited data on harms and further trials are required to determine participant selection and optimal frequency and duration of screening, with potential for significant overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Trials are ongoing for lung cancer screening in non-smokers.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Description of included trials\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to 31 July 2021. We included 11 trials, with a total of 94,445 participants. The trials came from the USA and Europe. The earliest trial started in 1991, and the most recent started in 2011. The participants were adults over the age of 40. The frequency of screening with CT ranged from yearly to more than 2.5 years."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6279
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExcessive alcohol use contributes significantly to physical and psychological illness, injury and death, and a wide array of social harm in all age groups. A proven strategy for reducing excessive alcohol consumption levels is to offer a brief conversation-based intervention in primary care settings, but more recent technological innovations have enabled people to interact directly via computer, mobile device or smartphone with digital interventions designed to address problem alcohol consumption.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, or both, in people living in the community, specifically: (i) Are digital interventions more effective and cost-effective than no intervention (or minimal input) controls? (ii) Are digital interventions at least equally effective as face-to-face brief alcohol interventions? (iii) What are the effective component behaviour change techniques (BCTs) of such interventions and their mechanisms of action? (iv) What theories or models have been used in the development and/or evaluation of the intervention? Secondary objectives were (i) to assess whether outcomes differ between trials where the digital intervention targets participants attending health, social care, education or other community-based settings and those where it is offered remotely via the internet or mobile phone platforms; (ii) to specify interventions according to their mode of delivery (e.g. functionality features) and assess the impact of mode of delivery on outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, HTA and Web of Knowledge databases; ClinicalTrials.com and WHO ICTRP trials registers and relevant websites to April 2017. We also checked the reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of digital interventions compared with no intervention or with face-to-face interventions for reducing hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people living in the community and reported a measure of alcohol consumption.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included 57 studies which randomised a total of 34,390 participants. The main sources of bias were from attrition and participant blinding (36% and 21% of studies respectively, high risk of bias). Forty one studies (42 comparisons, 19,241 participants) provided data for the primary meta-analysis, which demonstrated that participants using a digital intervention drank approximately 23 g alcohol weekly (95% CI 15 to 30) (about 3 UK units) less than participants who received no or minimal interventions at end of follow up (moderate-quality evidence).\nFifteen studies (16 comparisons, 10,862 participants) demonstrated that participants who engaged with digital interventions had less than one drinking day per month fewer than no intervention controls (moderate-quality evidence), 15 studies (3587 participants) showed about one binge drinking session less per month in the intervention group compared to no intervention controls (moderate-quality evidence), and in 15 studies (9791 participants) intervention participants drank one unit per occasion less than no intervention control participants (moderate-quality evidence).\nOnly five small studies (390 participants) compared digital and face-to-face interventions. There was no difference in alcohol consumption at end of follow up (MD 0.52 g/week, 95% CI -24.59 to 25.63; low-quality evidence). Thus, digital alcohol interventions produced broadly similar outcomes in these studies. No studies reported whether any adverse effects resulted from the interventions.\nA median of nine BCTs were used in experimental arms (range = 1 to 22). 'B' is an estimate of effect (MD in quantity of drinking, expressed in g/week) per unit increase in the BCT, and is a way to report whether individual BCTs are linked to the effect of the intervention. The BCTs of goal setting (B -43.94, 95% CI -78.59 to -9.30), problem solving (B -48.03, 95% CI -77.79 to -18.27), information about antecedents (B -74.20, 95% CI -117.72 to -30.68), behaviour substitution (B -123.71, 95% CI -184.63 to -62.80) and credible source (B -39.89, 95% CI -72.66 to -7.11) were significantly associated with reduced alcohol consumption in unadjusted models. In a multivariable model that included BCTs with B > 23 in the unadjusted model, the BCTs of behaviour substitution (B -95.12, 95% CI -162.90 to -27.34), problem solving (B -45.92, 95% CI -90.97 to -0.87), and credible source (B -32.09, 95% CI -60.64 to -3.55) were associated with reduced alcohol consumption.\nThe most frequently mentioned theories or models in the included studies were Motivational Interviewing Theory (7/20), Transtheoretical Model (6/20) and Social Norms Theory (6/20). Over half of the interventions (n = 21, 51%) made no mention of theory. Only two studies used theory to select participants or tailor the intervention. There was no evidence of an association between reporting theory use and intervention effectiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that digital interventions may lower alcohol consumption, with an average reduction of up to three (UK) standard drinks per week compared to control participants. Substantial heterogeneity and risk of performance and publication bias may mean the reduction was lower. Low-quality evidence from fewer studies suggested there may be little or no difference in impact on alcohol consumption between digital and face-to-face interventions.\nThe BCTs of behaviour substitution, problem solving and credible source were associated with the effectiveness of digital interventions to reduce alcohol consumption and warrant further investigation in an experimental context.\nReporting of theory use was very limited and often unclear when present. Over half of the interventions made no reference to any theories. Limited reporting of theory use was unrelated to heterogeneity in intervention effectiveness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Evidence was moderate-to-low quality."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6280
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous leg ulcers (VLUs) or varicose ulcers are the final stage of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI), and are the most common type of leg ulcer. The development of VLUs on ankles and lower legs can occur spontaneously or after minor trauma. The ulcers are often painful and exudative, healing is often protracted and recurrence is common. This cycle of healing and recurrence has a considerable impact on the health and quality of life of individuals, and healthcare and socioeconomic costs. VLUs are a common and costly problem worldwide; prevalence is estimated to be between 1.65% to 1.74% in the western world and is more common in adults aged 65 years and older. The main treatment for a VLU is a firm compression bandage. Compression assists by reducing venous hypertension, enhancing venous return and reducing peripheral oedema. However, studies show that it only has moderate effects on healing, with up to 50% of VLUs unhealed after two years of compression. Non-adherence may be the principal cause of these poor results, but presence of inflammation in people with CVI may be another factor, so a treatment that suppresses inflammation (healing ulcers more quickly) and reduces the frequency of ulcer recurrence (thereby prolonging time between recurrent episodes) would be an invaluable intervention to complement compression treatments. Oral aspirin may have a significant impact on VLU clinical practice worldwide. Evidence for the effectiveness of aspirin on ulcer healing and recurrence in high quality RCTs is currently lacking.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of oral aspirin on the healing and recurrence of venous leg ulcers.\nSearch methods\nIn May 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. Additional searches were made in trial registers and reference lists of relevant publications for published or ongoing trials. There were no language or publication date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral aspirin with placebo or no drug intervention (in the presence or absence of compression therapy) for treating people with venous leg ulcers. Our main outcomes were time to complete ulcer healing, rate of change in the area of the ulcer, proportion of ulcers healed in the trial period, major bleeding, pain, mortality, adverse events and ulcer recurrence (time for recurrence and proportion of recurrence).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of each included trial and assessed overall quality of evidence for the main outcomes in the 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nThe electronic search located 62 studies. We included two RCTs of oral aspirin (300 mg/daily) given in addition to compression compared with compression and placebo, or compression alone. To date, the impact of aspirin on VLUs has been examined by only two randomised clinical trials, both with a small number of participants. The first RCT was conducted in the United Kingdom (n=20) and reported that daily administration of aspirin (300mg) in addition to compression bandages increased both the rate of healing, and the number of participants healed when compared to placebo in addition to compression bandaging over a four month period. Thirty-eight per cent of the participants given aspirin reported complete healing compared with 0% in the placebo group . Improvement (assessed by reduction in wound size) occurred in 52% of the participants taking aspirin compared with 26% in those taking placebo). The study identified potential benefits of taking aspirin as an adjunct to compression but the sample size was small, and neither the mechanism by which aspirin improved healing nor its effects on recurrence were investigated.\nIn 2012 an RCT in Spain (n=51) compared daily administration of aspirin (300mg) in addition to compression bandages with compression alone over a five month period. There was little difference in complete healing rates between groups (21/28 aspirin and 17/23 compression bandages alone) but the average time to healing was shorter (12 weeks in the treated group vs 22 weeks in the compression only group) and the average time for recurrence was longer in the aspirin group (39 days: [SD 6.0] compared with 16.3 days [SD 7.5] in the compression only group). Although this trial provides some limited data about the potential use of aspirin therapy, the sample size (only 20 patients) was too small for us to draw meaningful conclusions. In addition, patients were only followed up for 4 months and no information on placebo was reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow quality evidence from two trials indicate that there is currently insufficient evidence for us to draw definitive conclusions about the benefits and harms of oral aspirin on the healing and recurrence of venous leg ulcers. We downgraded the evidence to low quality due to potential selection bias and imprecision due to the small sample size. The small number of participants may have a hidden real benefit, or an increase in harm. Due to the lack of reliable evidence, we are unable to draw conclusions about the benefits and harms of oral daily aspirin as an adjunct to compression in VLU healing or recurrence. Further high quality studies are needed in this area.\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": "Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are the most common type of leg ulcers (sores) and are caused by poor blood flow in the veins of the legs (chronic venous insufficiency). Chronic venous insufficiency leads to high blood pressure in the veins (venous hypertension), which triggers many alterations in the skin of the leg. Leg ulcers are the end stage of these alterations. VLUs can occur spontaneously or after minor trauma, they are often painful and produce heavy exudation (loss of fluid). VLUs are a major health problem because they are quite common, tend to become chronic (long-lasting) and also have a high tendency to recur. They affect older people more frequently, have high costs of care, and a high individual and social burden for those affected.\nCompression therapy, in the form of a firm bandage over the leg, which aids the flow of blood in the veins, is a well-established treatment for VLUs. However, studies show that compression has only moderate effects on healing, with up to 50% of VLUs remaining unhealed after two years of compression, possibly due to a prolonged inflammation process. A better understanding of the degenerative changes in the skin of the leg in people with VLUs and the chronic inflammation process involved in them, has led researchers to test different medicines that could improve the treatment of this condition. Aspirin has some well-known properties including: pain relief (analgesic), reducing inflammation and fever, and stopping blood cells from clumping together, which prevents formation of blood clots. Aspirin therapy may improve time to healing and decrease the number of recurrent VLU episodes. If proved effective, the low cost of aspirin therapy as an adjunct to compression would make it an affordable preventive agent for people with VLUs in all countries."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6281
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMajor depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome.\nFor acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.92 to −0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD −0.08, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD −4.80, 95% CI −9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants).\nThere was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain.\nIn terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants).\nWe downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.\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 reviewed 14 studies assessing the effectiveness of antidepressants in 1364 participants. We found that antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms after six to 12 weeks of treatment in people with cancer. There was not enough evidence to determine how well antidepressants were tolerated in comparison with placebo. The results did not show whether any particular antidepressant was better than any other antidepressant in terms of beneficial or harmful effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6282
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have high rates of cardiovascular events. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of homocysteine-lowering therapies have not shown reductions in cardiovascular event rates in the general population. However, people with kidney disease have higher levels of homocysteine and may have different mechanisms of cardiovascular disease. We performed a systematic review of the effect of homocysteine-lowering therapies in people with ESKD.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of established homocysteine lowering therapy (folic acid, vitamin B6, vitamin B12) on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular event rates in patients with ESKD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 25 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.\nSelection criteria\nStudies conducted in people with ESKD that reported at least 100 patient-years of follow-up and assessed the effect of therapies that are known to have homocysteine-lowering properties were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data using a standardised form. The primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, incident cardiovascular disease (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction and coronary revascularisation), cerebrovascular disease (stroke and cerebrovascular revascularisation), peripheral vascular disease (lower limb amputation), venous thromboembolic disease (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism), thrombosis of dialysis access, and adverse events. The effects of homocysteine-lowering therapies on outcomes were assessed with meta-analyses using random-effects models. Prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted.\nMain results\nWe included six studies that reported data on 2452 participants with ESKD. Interventions investigated were folic acid with or without other vitamins (vitamin B6, vitamin B12). Participants' mean age was 48 to 65 years, and proportions of male participants ranged from 50% to 98%.\nHomocysteine-lowering therapy probably leads to little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (4 studies, 1186 participants: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22). There was no evidence of heterogeneity among the included studies (I² = 0%). Homocysteine-lowering therapy had little or no effect on all-cause mortality or any other of this review's secondary outcomes. All prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses demonstrated little or no difference. Reported adverse events were mild and there was no increase in the incidence of adverse events from homocysteine-lowering therapies (3 studies, 1248 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.47; I2 = 0%). Overall, studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias and there was no evidence of publication bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHomocysteine-lowering therapies were not found to reduce mortality (cardiovascular and all-cause) or cardiovascular events among people with ESKD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found that homocysteine-lowering therapies had no benefits for heart health in people with advanced kidney disease who were on dialysis. These therapies did not achieve any reduction in rates of heart disease-related death. However, homocysteine-lowering therapies were generally well tolerated, and had a mild side effect profile."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6283
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPlasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, but not corticosteroids, are beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The efficacy of other pharmacological agents is unknown. This review was first published in 2011 and previously updated in 2013, and 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacological agents other than plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids for GBS.\nSearch methods\nOn 28 October 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for treatments for GBS. We also searched clinical trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of acute GBS (within four weeks from onset) of all types and degrees of severity, and in individuals of all ages. We discarded trials that investigated only corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange. We included other pharmacological treatments or combinations of treatments compared with no treatment, placebo or another treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nWe found six trials of five different interventions eligible for inclusion in this review. The trials were conducted in hospitals in Canada, China, Germany, Japan and the UK, and included 151 participants in total. All trials randomised participants aged 16 years and older (mean or median age in the trials ranged from 36 to 57 years in the intervention groups and 34 to 60 years in the control groups) with severe GBS, defined by the inability to walk unaided. One trial also randomised patients with mild GBS who were still able to walk unaided. We identified two new trials at this update.The primary outcome measure for this review was improvement in disability grade four weeks after randomisation. Four of six trials had a high risk of bias in at least one respect.\nWe assessed all evidence for the outcome mean improvement in disability grade as very low certainty, which means that we were unable to draw any conclusions from the data. One RCT with 19 participants compared interferon beta-1a (IFNb-1a) and placebo. It is uncertain whether IFNb-1a improves disability after four weeks (mean difference (MD) -0.1; 95% CI −1.58 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence). A trial with 10 participants compared brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BNDF) and placebo. It is uncertain whether BDNF improves disability after four weeks (MD 0.75; 95% CI −1.14 to 2.64; very low-certainty evidence). A trial with 37 participants compared cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) filtration and plasma exchange. It is uncertain whether CSF filtration improves disability after four weeks (MD 0.02; 95% CI −0.62 to 0.66; very low-certainty evidence). One trial that compared the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside with corticosteroids with 43 participants did not report the risk ratio (RR) for an improvement by one or more disability grade after four weeks, but did report improvement after eight weeks. It is uncertain whether tripterygium polyglycoside improves disability after eight weeks (RR 1.47; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.11; very low-certainty evidence). We performed a meta-analysis of two trials comparing eculizumab and placebo with 41 participants. It is uncertain whether eculizumab improves disability after four weeks (MD -0.23; 95% CI −1.79 to 1.34; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were uncommon in each of the trials and evidence was graded as either low or very low. It is uncertain whether serious adverse events were more common with IFNb-1a versus placebo (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.72; 19 participants), BNDF versus placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.54; 10 participants) or CSF filtration versus plasma exchange (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.25; 37 participants). The trial of tripterygium polyglycoside did not report serious adverse events. There may be no clear difference in the number of serious adverse events after eculizumab compared to placebo (RR 1.90, 0.34 to 10.50; 41 participants). We found no clinically important differences in any of the outcome measures selected for this review in any of the six trials. However, sample sizes were small and therefore clinically important benefit or harm cannot be excluded.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAll six RCTs were too small to exclude clinically important benefit or harm from the assessed interventions. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all interventions and outcomes.\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": "GBS is an acute (sudden and severe), paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the nerves (damage that occurs due to the body's immune system). Symptoms reach their worst within four weeks of onset. Between 3% and 17% of people with GBS die of its complications. A quarter need a ventilator to help with breathing. Recovery takes several weeks or months and is often incomplete. Plasma exchange (washing harmful substances out of the blood) and intravenous immunoglobulin (human antibodies harvested from blood donations given through a drip) can help speed up the recovery. Corticosteroids are probably not effective. Despite the use of plasma exchange or intravenous immunoglobulin many people with GBS have long-term disability. We need to find what other treatments have been tried as a basis for launching new trials."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6284
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOveractive bladder (OAB) is a common chronic and bothersome condition. Bladder training is widely prescribed as a first-line treatment for OAB, but the efficacy has been systematically evaluated for urinary incontinence rather than OAB alone.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of bladder training for treating adults with OAB compared to no treatment, anticholinergics, β3-adrenoceptor agonists, or pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) alone or in combination.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 6 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials involving adults aged 18 years or older with non-neurogenic OAB. We excluded studies of participants whose symptoms were caused by factors outside the urinary tract (e.g. neurologic disorders, cognitive impairment, gynecologic diseases).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. participant-reported cure or improvement, 2. symptom- and condition-related quality of life (QoL), and 3. adverse events. Secondary outcomes included 4. participant-reported satisfaction, 5. number of incontinence episodes, 6. number of urgency episodes, and 7. number of micturition episodes. For the purpose of this review, we considered two time points: immediately after the treatment (early phase) and at least two months after the treatment (late phase). We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 15 trials with 2007 participants; participants in these trials were predominantly women (89.3%). We assessed the risk of bias of results for primary and secondary outcomes, which across all studies was similar and predominantly of high risk of bias, and none were at low risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was low to very low, with some moderate, across measured outcomes.\nBladder training versus no treatment: three studies involving 92 participants compared bladder training to no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of bladder training on cure or improvement at the early phase (risk ratio (RR) 17.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 256.56; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Bladder training may reduce the number of incontinence episodes (mean difference (MD) −1.86, 95% CI −3.47 to −0.25; 1 study, 14 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies measured symptom- and condition-related QoL, number of adverse events, participant-reported satisfaction, number of urgency episodes, or number of micturition episodes in the early phase.\nBladder training versus anticholinergics: seven studies (602 participants) investigated the effects of bladder training versus anticholinergic therapy. Bladder training may be more effective than anticholinergics on cure or improvement at the early phase (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.70; 4 studies, 258 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of bladder training on symptom- and condition-related QoL (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.06, 95% CI −0.89 to 0.77; 2 studies, 117 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although the evidence is very uncertain, there were fewer adverse events in the bladder training group than in the anticholinergics group (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.17; 3 studies, 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.36, 95% CI −0.27 to 1.00; 2 studies, 117 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the number of urgency episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.70, 95% CI −0.62 to 2.02; 2 studies, 92 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the number of micturition episodes per 24 hours (MD −0.35, 95% CI −1.90 to 1.20; 3 studies, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured participant-reported satisfaction in the early phase.\nBladder training versus PFMT: three studies involving 203 participants compared bladder training to PFMT. The evidence is very uncertain about the different effects between bladder training and PFMT on symptom- and condition-related QoL at the early phase (SMD 0.10, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.40; 2 studies, 178 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no adverse events in either group at the early phase (1 study, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of the number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.02, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.39, 1 study, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain about the number of micturition episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.10, 95% CI −1.44 to 1.64; 1 study, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured cure or improvement, participant-reported satisfaction, or number of urgency episodes in the early phase.\nAlthough we were interested in studies examining bladder training versus β3-adrenoceptor agonists, in combination with β3-adrenoceptor agonists versus β3-adrenoceptor agonists alone, and in combination with PFMT versus PFMT alone, we did not identify any eligible studies for these comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review focused on the effect of bladder training to treat OAB. However, most of the evidence was low or very-low certainty. Based on the low- or very low-certainty evidence, bladder training may cure or improve OAB compared to no treatment. Bladder training may be more effective to cure or improve OAB than anticholinergics, and there may be fewer adverse events. There may be no difference in efficacy or safety between bladder training and PFMT. More well-designed trials are needed to reach a firm conclusion.\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 compare the effectiveness of bladder training to other treatments for adults with overactive bladder (OAB)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6285
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Lifestyle changes are at the forefront of preventing the disease. This includes advice such as increasing physical activity and having a healthy balanced diet to reduce risk factors. Intermittent fasting (IF) is a popular dietary plan involving restricting caloric intake to certain days in the week such as alternate day fasting and periodic fasting, and restricting intake to a number of hours in a given day, otherwise known as time-restricted feeding. IF is being researched for its benefits and many randomised controlled trials have looked at its benefits in preventing CVD.\nObjectives\nTo determine the role of IF in preventing and reducing the risk of CVD in people with or without prior documented CVD.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted our search on 12 December 2019; we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched three trials registers and searched the reference lists of included papers. Systematic reviews were also viewed for additional studies. There was no language restriction applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing IF to ad libitum feeding (eating at any time with no specific caloric restriction) or continuous energy restriction (CER). Participants had to be over the age of 18 and included those with and without cardiometabolic risk factors. Intermittent fasting was categorised into alternate-day fasting, modified alternate-day fasting, periodic fasting and time-restricted feeding.\nData collection and analysis\nFive review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extraction. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Secondary outcomes include the absolute change in body weight, and glucose. Furthermore, side effects such as headaches and changes to the quality of life were also noted. For continuous data, pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) were calculated. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nOur search yielded 39,165 records after the removal of duplicates. From this, 26 studies met our criteria, and 18 were included in the pooled analysis. The 18 studies included 1125 participants and observed outcomes ranging from four weeks to six months. Of quantitatively analysed data, seven studies compared IF with ab libitum feeding, eight studies compared IF with CER, and three studies compared IF with both ad libitum feeding and CER. Outcomes were reported at short term (≤ 3 months) and medium term (> 3 months to 12 months) follow-up.\nNone of the included studies reported on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or heart failure.\nBody weight was reduced with IF compared to ad libitum feeding in the short term (MD -2.88 kg, 95% CI -3.96 to -1.80; 224 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IF when compared to CER in the short term (MD -0.88 kg, 95% CI -1.76 to 0.00; 719 participants; 10 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and there may be no effect in the medium term (MD -0.56 kg, 95% CI -1.68 to 0.56; 279 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain about the effect of IF on glucose when compared to ad libitum feeding in the short term (MD -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.19; 95 participants; 3 studies; very-low-certainty of evidence) and when compared to CER in the short term: MD -0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.12; 582 participants; 9 studies; very low-certainty; medium term: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.11; 279 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nThe changes in body weight and glucose were not deemed to be clinically significant.\nFour studies reported data on side effects, with some participants complaining of mild headaches. One study reported on the quality of life using the RAND SF-36 score. There was a modest increase in the physical component summary score.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the effects of intermittent fasting on clinical events such as mortality, myocardial infarction and heart failure due to lack of data for these outcomes. The individual meta-analyses show that intermittent fasting may be effective in reducing weight when compared to ad libitum feeding and may be as effective as continuous energy restriction. Despite this, these changes appear to be clinically insignificant at short-term follow-up. The quality of the available evidence is low to very low which means that many areas of uncertainty remain. Further research is needed to understand which patient groups would and would not benefit from intermittent fasting (e.g. patients with diabetes or eating disorders) as well as the effect on longer-term outcomes such as all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Following a diet\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Some people choose to lose weight by following a diet; for example, by eating less fat, or by reducing the number of calories they eat. Intermittent fasting is a type of diet involving patterns of eating and fasting (not eating foods); it does not limit what foods you eat, but limits when you can eat them. Eating patterns in intermittent fasting include: fasting for one or two days each week; fasting every other day; or eating only during certain hours and fasting for at least 12 hours every day."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6286
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInguinal or femoral hernia is a tissue protrusion in the groin region and has a cumulative incidence of 27% in adult men and of 3% in adult women. As most hernias become symptomatic over time, groin hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide. This type of surgery is considered 'clean' surgery with wound infection rates expected to be lower than 5%. For clean surgical procedures, antibiotic prophylaxis is not generally recommended. However after the introduction of mesh-based hernia repair and the publication of studies that have high wound infection rates the debate as to whether antibiotic prophylaxis is required to prevent postoperative wound infections started again.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing postoperative (superficial and deep) wound infections in elective open inguinal and femoral hernia repair.\nSearch methods\nWe searched several electronic databases: Cochrane Registry of Studies Online, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Scopus and Science Citation Index (search performed on 12 November 2019). We also searched two trial registers and the reference list of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing any type of antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo or no treatment for preventing postoperative wound infections in adults undergoing inguinal or femoral open hernia repair surgery (tissue repair and mesh repair).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We separately analysed results for two different surgical methods (herniorrhaphy and hernioplasty). Several studies revealed infection rates that were higher than the expected 5% for clean surgery and we therefore divided studies into two subgroups: high infection risk environments (≥ 5% infection rate); and low infection risk environments (< 5% infection rate). We performed meta-analyses with random-effects models. We analysed three outcomes: superficial surgical site infections (SSSI); deep surgical site infections (DSSI); and all postoperative wound infections (SSSI + DSSI).\nMain results\nIn this review update we identified and included 10 new studies. In total, we included 27 studies with 8308 participants in this review.\nIt is uncertain whether antibiotic prophylaxis as compared to placebo (or no treatment) prevents all types of postoperative wound infections after herniorrhaphy surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.33; 5 studies, 1865 participants; very low quality evidence). Subgroup analysis did not change these results. We could not perform meta-analyses for SSSI or DSSI as these outcomes were not reported separately.\nTwenty-two studies related to hernioplasty surgery (total of 6443 participants) and we analysed three outcomes: SSSI; DSSI; SSSI + DSSI.\nWithin the low infection risk environment subgroup, antibiotic prophylaxis as compared to placebo probably makes little or no difference for the outcomes 'prevention of all wound infections' (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence) and 'prevention of SSSI' (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.17, moderate-quality evidence). Within the high infection risk environment subgroup it is uncertain whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces all types of wound infections (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77, very low quality evidence) or SSSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77, very low quality evidence). When combining participants from both subgroups, antibiotic prophylaxis as compared to placebo probably reduces the risk of all types of wound infections (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78) and SSSI (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78; moderate-quality evidence).\nAntibiotic prophylaxis as compared to placebo probably makes little or no difference in reducing the risk of postoperative DSSI (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.65; moderate-quality evidence), both in a low infection risk environment (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.13; moderate-quality evidence) and in the high infection risk environment (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.89; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence of very low quality shows that it is uncertain whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the risk of postoperative wound infections after herniorrhaphy surgery. Evidence of moderate quality shows that antibiotic prophylaxis probably makes little or no difference in preventing wound infections (i.e. all wound infections, SSSI or DSSI) after hernioplasty surgery in a low infection risk environment. In a high-risk environment, evidence of very low quality shows it is uncertain whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces all wound infections and SSSI after hernioplasty surgery. Evidence of low quality shows that antibiotic prophylaxis in a high-risk environment may have little or no difference in reducing the risk of DSSI.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Investigation\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the literature (12 November 2019) for randomised controlled trials comparing antibiotics versus placebo to prevent wound infections after open groin hernia repair surgery. We included both suture-based and mesh-type surgical methods. We divided infections into superficial and deep wound infections. Several studies revealed infection rates that were higher than the expected 5% for clean surgery. Therefore, we divided studies into a group with low infection rates (less than 5%) and one with high infection rates (more than 5%)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBiologics are used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other conditions. While the efficacy of biologics has been established, there is uncertainty regarding the adverse effects of this treatment. Since important risks such as lymphomas, serious infections and tuberculosis (TB) reactivation may be more common to the biologics but occur in small numbers across the various indications, we planned to combine the results from biologics used in many conditions to obtain much needed risk estimates.\nObjectives\nTo compare the potential adverse effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), interleukin (IL)-1 antagonist (anakinra), IL-6 antagonist (tocilizumab), anti-CD28 (abatacept), and anti-B cell (rituximab) therapy in patients with any disease condition except human immunodeficiency disease (HIV/AIDS).\nMethods\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and open-label extension (OLE) studies that studied one of the nine biologics for use in any indication (with the exception of HIV/AIDS) and that reported our pre-specified adverse outcomes (serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs), total AEs, serious infections; specific AEs, namely, tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, lymphoma and congestive heart failure) were considered for inclusion. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (to January 2010). Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. For the network meta-analysis, we performed both Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison models and arm-based generalized linear mixed models.\nMain results\nWe included 160 RCTs with 48,676 participants and 46 extension studies with 11,954 participants. The median duration of RCTs was six months and 13 months for OLEs. Data were limited for TB reactivation, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure. Using standard dose, compared with control, biologics as a group were associated with a statistically significant higher rate of total AEs (odds ratio (OR) 1.28, 95% credible interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.50; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14 to 60), withdrawals due to AEs (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.86; NNTH = 26, 95% CI 15 to 58), serious infections (OR, 1.37, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.82, NNTH = 108 95% CI, 50 to 989) and TB reactivation (OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.18 to 18.60; NNTH = 681, 95% CI 143 to 14706).\nThe rate of SAEs, lymphoma and congestive heart failure were not statistically significantly different between biologics and control treatment.\nCertolizumab pegol (OR 4.75, 95% CI 1.52 to 18.65; NNTH = 12, 95% CI 4 to 79) and anakinra (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.22 to 16.84; NNTH = 14, 95% CI 4 to 181) were associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of serious infections compared with control treatment. Compared with control, certolizumab was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of SAEs (as defined in included studies: OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.32; NNTH = 18, 95% CI 9 to 162). Infliximab was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of total AEs OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.35; NNTH = 13, 95% CI 8 to 505) and withdrawals due to AEs compared with control (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.14; NNTH = 10, 95% CI 5 to 30).\nThe overall numbers were relatively small for indirect comparisons. Indirect comparisons revealed that certolizumab pegol was associated with a statistically significantly higher odds of serious infections compared with abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and rituximab; and anakinra was statistically significantly more likely than rituximab to be associated with serious infections. Certolizumab pegol was associated with a statistically significant higher odds of SAEs compared with adalimumab and abatacept. No statistically significant differences were noted between biologics in total AEs or withdrawals due to AEs in indirect comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, in the short term biologics were associated with statistically significantly higher rates of serious infections, TB reactivation, total AEs and withdrawals due to AEs. Serious infections included opportunistic infections as well as bacterial infections in most studies. Some biologics had a statistically higher association with certain adverse outcomes compared with control, but there was no consistency across the outcomes so caution is needed in interpreting these results.\nThere is a need for more research regarding the long-term safety of biologics and an urgent need for comparative safety reports of different biologics; preferably without industry involvement. National and international registries and other types of large databases are relevant sources for providing complementary evidence regarding the short- and longer-term safety of biologics.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The review shows that people using these biologics in the short term\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- will probably be a little more likely to experience more serious infections or tuberculosis than people who take placebo (fake drug);\n- will probably be a little more likely to experience side effects or drop out of the study due to side effects than people who take placebo;\n- will probably not experience more serious side effects* (other than serious infections), cancer, or congestive heart failure than people who take placebo.\n(*A serious side effect is a life threatening adverse event that can result in death or hospitalization and disability or permanent damage).\nWe do not have precise information about other possible side effects and complications, including rare or long-term side effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6288
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGiven the significant impact epilepsy may have on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of individuals with epilepsy and their families, there is increasing clinical interest in evidence-based psychological treatments, aimed at enhancing psychological and seizure-related outcomes for this group.\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 10, 2017.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on HRQOL outcomes.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched the following databases on 12 August 2019, without language restrictions: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials from the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 09 August 2019), and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 onwards), and from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We screened the references from included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted researchers in the field for unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs for this review. HRQOL was the main outcome. For the operational definition of 'psychological treatments', we included a broad range of skills-based psychological treatments and education-only interventions designed to improve HRQOL, seizure frequency and severity, as well as psychiatric and behavioral health comorbidities for adults and children with epilepsy. These psychological treatments were compared to treatment as usual (TAU), an active control group (such as social support group), or antidepressant pharmacotherapy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 36 completed RCTs, with a total of 3526 participants. Of these studies, 27 investigated skills-based psychological interventions. The remaining nine studies were education-only interventions. Six studies investigated interventions for children and adolescents, three studies investigated interventions for adolescents and adults, and the remaining studies investigated interventions for adults. Based on satisfactory clinical and methodological homogeneity, we pooled data from 11 studies (643 participants) that used the Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31 (QOLIE-31) or other QOLIE inventories (such as QOLIE-89 or QOLIE-31-P) convertible to QOLIE-31. We found significant mean changes for the QOLIE-31 total score and six subscales (emotional well-being, energy and fatigue, overall QoL, seizure worry, medication effects, and cognitive functioning). The mean changes in the QOLIE-31 total score (mean improvement of 5.23 points, 95% CI 3.02 to 7.44; P < 0.001), and the overall QoL score (mean improvement of 5.95 points, 95% CI 3.05 to 8.85; P < 0.001) exceeded the threshold of minimally important change (MIC: total score: 4.73 points; QoL score: 5.22 points), indicating a clinically meaningful postintervention improvement in HRQOL. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence provided by the meta-analysis due to serious risks of bias in some of the included studies. Consequently, these results provided moderate-certainty evidence that psychological treatments for adults with epilepsy may enhance overall HRQOL.\nAuthors' conclusions\nImplications for practice: Skills-based psychological interventions improve HRQOL in adults and adolescents with epilepsy. Adjunctive use of skills-based psychological treatments for adults and adolescents with epilepsy may provide additional benefits in HRQOL when these are incorporated into patient-centered management. We judge the evidence to be of moderate certainty.\nImplications for research: Investigators should strictly adhere to the CONSORT guidelines to improve the quality of reporting on their interventions. A thorough description of intervention protocols is necessary to ensure reproducibility.\nWhen examining the effectiveness of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy, the use of standardized HRQOL inventories, such as the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventories (QOLIE-31, QOLIE-31-P, and QOLIE-89) would increase comparability. Unfortunately, there is a critical gap in pediatric RCTs and RCTs including people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.\nFinally, in order to increase the overall quality of RCT study designs, adequate randomization with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment should be pursued. As attrition is often high in research that requires active participation, an intention-to-treat analysis should be carried out. Treatment fidelity and treatment competence should also be assessed. These important dimensions, which are related to 'Risk of bias' assessment, should always be reported.\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": "The 11 studies (involving 643 adults and adolescents) were conducted in Europe (3 studies), the USA (4), Hong Kong (2), Mexico (1) and Australia (1). People in the studies were followed and assessed from 12 weeks to 2 years.\nThe 11 studies measured different aspects of quality of life. People received skills-based psychological therapies reported better quality of life overall than those who received usual care (8 studies), social support (2) or antidepressant medicines (1).\nTen of these 11 studies also looked at subscales of the quality of life questionnaires to assess specific aspects of quality of life. People in these studies reported better results on the six subscales, - emotional well-being, energy and fatigue, overall well-being, seizure worries, medication effects, and social function, which are combined to calculated overall quality of life."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6289
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHordeolum is an acute, purulent inflammation of the eyelid margin usually caused by obstructed orifices of the sebaceous glands of the eyelid. The condition, which affects sebaceous glands internally or externally, is common. When the meibomian gland in the tarsal plate is affected, internal hordeolum occurs, while when the glands of Zeis or Moll associated with eyelash follicles are affected, external hordeolum, or stye occurs. The onset of hordeolum is usually self limited, and may resolve in about a week with spontaneous drainage of the abscess. When the condition is severe, it can spread to adjacent glands and tissues. Recurrences are very common. As long as an internal hordeolum remains unresolved, it can develop into a chalazion or generalized eyelid cellulitis. Acupuncture is a traditional Chinese medical therapy aimed to treat disease by using fine needles to stimulate specific points on the body. However, it is unclear if acupuncture is an effective and safe treatment for acute hordeolum.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture to treat acute hordeolum compared with no treatment, sham acupuncture, or other active treatment. We also compared the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture plus another treatment with that treatment alone.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS), three major Chinese databases, as well as clinical trial registers all through 7 June 2016. We reviewed the reference lists from potentially eligible studies to identify additional randomised clinical trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs of people diagnosed with acute internal or external hordeola. We included RCTs comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture or no treatment, other active treatments, or comparing acupuncture plus another treatment versus another treatment alone.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures used by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 6 RCTs with a total of 531 participants from China. The mean age of the participants ranged from 18 to 28 years. Four RCTs included participants diagnosed with initial acute hordeolum with a duration of less than seven days; one RCT included participants diagnosed with initial acute hordeolum without specifying the duration; and one RCT included participants with recurrent acute hordeolum with a mean duration of 24 days. About 55% (291/531) of participants were women. Three RCTs included participants with either external or internal hordeolum; one RCT included participants with only external hordeolum; and two RCTs did not specify the type of hordeolum. Follow-up was no more than seven days after treatment in all included RCTs; no data were available for long-term outcomes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was low to very low, and we judged all RCTs to be at high or unclear risk of bias.\nThree RCTs compared acupuncture with conventional treatments. We did not pool the data from these RCTs because the conventional treatments were not similar among trials. Two trials showed that resolution of acute hordeolum was more likely in the acupuncture group when compared with topical antibiotics (1 RCT; 32 participants; risk ratio (RR) 3.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 9.70; low-certainty of evidence) or oral antibiotics plus warm compresses (1 RCT; 120 participants; RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.78; low-certainty of evidence). In the third trial, little or no difference in resolution of hordeolum was observed when acupuncture was compared with topical antibiotics plus warm compresses (1 RCT; 109 participants; RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; low-certainty of evidence). One RCT mentioned adverse outcomes, stating that there was no adverse event associated with acupuncture.\nThree RCTs compared acupuncture plus conventional treatments (two RCTs used topical antibiotics and warm compresses, one RCT used topical antibiotics only) versus the conventional treatments alone. One of the three RCTs, with very low-certainty evidence, did not report the resolution of acute hordeolum; however, it reported that acute hordeolum relief might be higher when acupuncture was combined with conventional treatments than with conventional treatments alone group (60 participants; RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.00 to 3.23). Pooled analysis of the remaining two RCTs, with low-certainty evidence, estimated resolution of acute hordeolum was slightly higher in the combined treatment group compared with the conventional treatment alone group at 7-day follow-up (210 participants; RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.23; I2 = 0%). None of the three RCTs reported adverse outcomes. Among the included RCTs, four participants, two from the acupuncture plus conventional treatments group and two from the conventional treatments alone group, withdrew due to exacerbation of symptoms.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-certainty evidence suggests that acupuncture with or without conventional treatments may provide short-term benefits for treating acute hordeolum when compared with conventional treatments alone. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low mainly due to small sample sizes, inadequate allocation concealment, lack of masking of the outcome assessors, inadequate or unclear randomization method, and a high or unreported number of dropouts. All RCTs were conducted in China, which may limit their generalizability to non-Chinese populations.\nBecause no RCTs included a valid sham acupuncture control, we cannot rule out a potential expectation/placebo effect associated with acupuncture. As resolution is based on clinical observation, the outcome could be influenced by the observer's knowledge of the assigned treatment. Adverse effects of acupuncture were reported sparsely in the included RCTs, and, when reported, were rare. RCTs with better methodology, longer follow-up, and which are conducted among other populations are warranted to provide more general evidence regarding the benefit of acupuncture to treat acute hordeolum.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found six studies from China, including a total of 531 people. The follow-up was no more than seven days after treatment. Three studies compared acupuncture with different conventional treatments and three studies compared acupuncture plus conventional treatments versus conventional treatments alone.\nThe review showed that:\n• Acupuncture may increase the chance of the hordeolum getting better compared with using antibiotics and/or warm compresses (low-certainty evidence).\n• Acupuncture combined with antibiotics and/or warm compresses compared with antibiotics and/or warm compresses may slightly increase the chance of the hordeolum getting better (low-certainty evidence).\n• It is uncertain whether there are any harmful effects of acupuncture for hordeolum."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6290
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHelicobacter pylori is estimated to affect about half the world's population and is considered as the main cause of chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer disease. Eradication of H. pylori infection accelerates ulcer healing and prevents relapse, reducing incidence of H. pylori-related gastric diseases. Numerous studies have provided evidence that the oral cavity could be a potential reservoir for H. pylori. The presence of oralH. pylori might affect the efficiency of eradication therapy and act as a causal force for its recurrence. Conversely, other investigators have indicated that the colonization and growth of H. pylori differs between the oral cavity and the stomach. Considering the open debate on the topic, it's necessary to clarify whether periodontal therapy is an effective adjunctive treatment for gastric H. pylori infection.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of periodontal therapy plus eradication therapy versus eradication therapy alone for gastric H. pylori infection. The secondary objective is to compare the non-recurrence rate at long-term follow up in different treatment groups.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015), EMBASE (1980 to August 2015), and the Chinese Biomedical Database (1978 to August 2015). We also searched both ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP portal in October 2015. We handsearched the reference lists of included studies to identify relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs comparing periodontal therapy plus eradication treatment with eradication treatment alone, regardless of language of publication.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers selected the trials that met the inclusion criteria and extracted the details of each study independently. The data were pooled using both fixed-effect and random-effects models and results calculated as odds ratios (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on an intention-to-treat analysis. However, because there was little difference in the results from these two models, we only reported the results from the fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included seven small RCTs involving 691 participants aged 17 to 78 years in our meta analyses. The primary result showed that periodontal therapy combined with H. pylori eradication treatment increased the eradication rate of gastric H. pylori compared with eradication treatment alone (OR 2.15; 95% CI 1.47 to 3.14; P < 0.0001) in people with H. pylori infection. In addition, periodontal therapy also had benefits on long-term gastric H. pylori eradication. After eradication of H. pylori, the non-recurrence rate of gastric H. pylori infection increased in participants treated with periodontal therapy compared with those who received eradication therapy alone (OR 3.60; 95% CI 2.11 to 6.15; P < 0.00001). According to the GRADE approach, the overall quality of the evidence was 'moderate' for eradication rate of gastric H.pylori and 'low' for non-recurrence rate of gastric H. pylori.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, periodontal therapy could increase the efficiency of H. pylori eradication and the non-recurrence rate of gastricH. pylori. In view of the limited number and quality of included studies, it will be necessary to conduct more well-designed, multicenter, and large-scale RCTs to determine the effects of periodontal therapy in eradicating gastric H. pylori and suppressing the recurrence of this bacterium in the stomach.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The results indicated that periodontal therapy as an added treatment had some benefits on eradication of gastricH. pylori for short-term and long-term follow-up. The eradication (the reduction of the prevalence of H. pylori in stomach to normal range) and non-recurrence (the proportion of participants that remained free of gastric H. pylori after successful eradication therapy) rates increased in people who received periodontal therapy plus eradication treatment, when compared with those who received eradication treatment alone."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6291
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOne in five fibromyalgia sufferers use acupuncture treatment within two years of diagnosis.\nObjectives\nTo examine the benefits and safety of acupuncture treatment for fibromyalgia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, National Research Register, HSR Project and Current Contents, as well as the Chinese databases VIP and Wangfang to January 2012 with no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised studies evaluating any type of invasive acupuncture for fibromyalgia diagnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, and reporting any main outcome: pain, physical function, fatigue, sleep, total well-being, stiffness and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo author pairs selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Treatment effects were reported as standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes using different measurement tools (pain, physical function, fatigue, sleep, total well-being and stiffness) and risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes (adverse events). We pooled data using the random-effects model.\nMain results\nNine trials (395 participants) were included. All studies except one were at low risk of selection bias; five were at risk of selective reporting bias (favouring either treatment group); two were subject to attrition bias (favouring acupuncture); three were subject to performance bias (favouring acupuncture) and one to detection bias (favouring acupuncture). Three studies utilised electro-acupuncture (EA) with the remainder using manual acupuncture (MA) without electrical stimulation. All studies used 'formula acupuncture' except for one, which used trigger points.\nLow quality evidence from one study (13 participants) showed EA improved symptoms with no adverse events at one month following treatment. Mean pain in the non-treatment control group was 70 points on a 100 point scale; EA reduced pain by a mean of 22 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 4 to 41), or 22% absolute improvement. Control group global well-being was 66.5 points on a 100 point scale; EA improved well-being by a mean of 15 points (95% CI 5 to 26 points). Control group stiffness was 4.8 points on a 0 to 10 point; EA reduced stiffness by a mean of 0.9 points (95% CI 0.1 to 2 points; absolute reduction 9%, 95% CI 4% to 16%). Fatigue was 4.5 points (10 point scale) without treatment; EA reduced fatigue by a mean of 1 point (95% CI 0.22 to 2 points), absolute reduction 11% (2% to 20%). There was no difference in sleep quality (MD 0.4 points, 95% CI -1 to 0.21 points, 10 point scale), and physical function was not reported.\nModerate quality evidence from six studies (286 participants) indicated that acupuncture (EA or MA) was no better than sham acupuncture, except for less stiffness at one month. Subgroup analysis of two studies (104 participants) indicated benefits of EA. Mean pain was 70 points on 0 to 100 point scale with sham treatment; EA reduced pain by 13% (5% to 22%); (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.23). Global well-being was 5.2 points on a 10 point scale with sham treatment; EA improved well-being: SMD 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.05; absolute improvement 11% (4% to 17%). EA improved sleep, from 3 points on a 0 to 10 point scale in the sham group: SMD 0.40 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.79); absolute improvement 8% (0.2% to 16%). Low-quality evidence from one study suggested that MA group resulted in poorer physical function: mean function in the sham group was 28 points (100 point scale); treatment worsened function by a mean of 6 points (95% CI -10.9 to -0.7). Low-quality evidence from three trials (289 participants) suggested no difference in adverse events between real (9%) and sham acupuncture (35%); RR 0.44 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.63).\nModerate quality evidence from one study (58 participants) found that compared with standard therapy alone (antidepressants and exercise), adjunct acupuncture therapy reduced pain at one month after treatment: mean pain was 8 points on a 0 to 10 point scale in the standard therapy group; treatment reduced pain by 3 points (95% CI -3.9 to -2.1), an absolute reduction of 30% (21% to 39%). Two people treated with acupuncture reported adverse events; there were none in the control group (RR 3.57; 95% CI 0.18 to 71.21). Global well-being, sleep, fatigue and stiffness were not reported. Physical function data were not usable.\nLow quality evidence from one study (38 participants) showed a short-term benefit of acupuncture over antidepressants in pain relief: mean pain was 29 points (0 to 100 point scale) in the antidepressant group; acupuncture reduced pain by 17 points (95% CI -24.1 to -10.5). Other outcomes or adverse events were not reported.\nModerate-quality evidence from one study (41 participants) indicated that deep needling with or without deqi did not differ in pain, fatigue, function or adverse events. Other outcomes were not reported.\nFour studies reported no differences between acupuncture and control or other treatments described at six to seven months follow-up.\nNo serious adverse events were reported, but there were insufficient adverse events to be certain of the risks.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low to moderate-level evidence that compared with no treatment and standard therapy, acupuncture improves pain and stiffness in people with fibromyalgia. There is moderate-level evidence that the effect of acupuncture does not differ from sham acupuncture in reducing pain or fatigue, or improving sleep or global well-being. EA is probably better than MA for pain and stiffness reduction and improvement of global well-being, sleep and fatigue. The effect lasts up to one month, but is not maintained at six months follow-up. MA probably does not improve pain or physical functioning. Acupuncture appears safe. People with fibromyalgia may consider using EA alone or with exercise and medication. The small sample size, scarcity of studies for each comparison, lack of an ideal sham acupuncture weaken the level of evidence and its clinical implications. Larger studies are warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The review shows that in people with fibromyalgia\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- acupuncture is probably better than non-acupuncture treatment in reducing pain and stiffness and improving overall well-being and fatigue;\n- acupuncture with electrical stimulation is probably better than needling alone in reducing pain and stiffness, and improving overall well-being, sleep and fatigue;\n- acupuncture without electrical stimulation probably does not reduce pain or improve fatigue, overall well-being or sleep; and\n- acupuncture probably enhances the effect of drugs and exercise on pain."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6292
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople living in humanitarian settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are exposed to a constellation of stressors that make them vulnerable to developing mental disorders. Mental disorders with a higher prevalence in these settings include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive, anxiety, somatoform (e.g. medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS)), and related disorders. A range of psychological therapies are used to manage symptoms of mental disorders in this population.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and acceptability of psychological therapies versus control conditions (wait list, treatment as usual, attention placebo, psychological placebo, or no treatment) aimed at treating people with mental disorders (PTSD and major depressive, anxiety, somatoform, and related disorders) living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), and PsycINFO (OVID), with results incorporated from searches to 3 February 2016. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any unpublished or ongoing studies. We checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological therapies versus control conditions (including no treatment, usual care, wait list, attention placebo, and psychological placebo) to treat adults and children with mental disorders living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane procedures for collecting data and evaluating risk of bias. We calculated standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analysed data at endpoint (zero to four weeks after therapy); at medium term (one to four months after therapy); and at long term (six months or longer). GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and withdrawal outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 36 studies (33 RCTs) with a total of 3523 participants. Included studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, and Asia. Studies were implemented in response to armed conflicts; disasters triggered by natural hazards; and other types of humanitarian crises. Together, the 33 RCTs compared eight psychological treatments against a control comparator.\nFour studies included children and adolescents between 5 and 18 years of age. Three studies included mixed populations (two studies included participants between 12 and 25 years of age, and one study included participants between 16 and 65 years of age). Remaining studies included adult populations (18 years of age or older).\nIncluded trials compared a psychological therapy versus a control intervention (wait list in most studies; no treatment; treatment as usual). Psychological therapies were categorised mainly as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in 23 comparisons (including seven comparisons focused on narrative exposure therapy (NET), two focused on common elements treatment approach (CETA), and one focused on brief behavioural activation treatment (BA)); eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) in two comparisons; interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) in three comparisons; thought field therapy (TFT) in three comparisons; and trauma or general supportive counselling in two comparisons. Although interventions were described under these categories, several psychotherapeutic elements were common to a range of therapies (i.e. psychoeducation, coping skills).\nIn adults, psychological therapies may substantially reduce endpoint PTSD symptoms compared to control conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.34 to -0.79; 1272 participants; 16 studies; low-quality evidence). The effect is smaller at one to four months (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.31; 1660 participants; 18 studies) and at six months (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.14; 400 participants; five studies). Psychological therapies may also substantially reduce endpoint depression symptoms compared to control conditions (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.67; 1254 participants; 14 studies; low-quality evidence). Similar to PTSD symptoms, follow-up data at one to four months showed a smaller effect on depression (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.21; 1386 participants; 16 studies). Psychological therapies may moderately reduce anxiety at endpoint (SMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.49; 694 participants; five studies; low-quality evidence) and at one to four months' follow-up after treatment (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.39; 969 participants; seven studies). Dropout rates are probably similar between study conditions (19.5% with control versus 19.1% with psychological therapy (RR 0.98 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; 2930 participants; 23 studies, moderate quality evidence)).\nIn children and adolescents, we found very low quality evidence for lower endpoint PTSD symptoms scores in psychotherapy conditions (CBT) compared to control conditions, although the confidence interval is wide (SMD -1.56, 95% CI -3.13 to 0.01; 130 participants; three studies;). No RCTs provided data on major depression or anxiety in children. The effect on withdrawal was uncertain (RR 1.87 95% CI 0.47 to 7.47; 138 participants; 3 studies, low quality evidence).\nWe did not identify any studies that evaluated psychological treatments on (symptoms of) somatoform disorders or MUPS in LMIC humanitarian settings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low quality evidence that psychological therapies have large or moderate effects in reducing PTSD, depressive, and anxiety symptoms in adults living in humanitarian settings in LMICs. By one to four month and six month follow-up assessments treatment effects were smaller. Fewer trials were focused on children and adolescents and they provide very low quality evidence of a beneficial effect of psychological therapies in reducing PTSD symptoms at endpoint. Confidence in these findings is influenced by the risk of bias in the studies and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. More research evidence is needed, particularly for children and adolescents over longer periods of follow-up.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does evidence presented in the review tell us?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In adults, low-quality evidence shows greater benefit from psychological therapies than from control comparators in reducing (symptoms of) PTSD, major depression, and anxiety disorders. This evidence supports the approach of providing psychological therapies to populations affected by humanitarian crises, although we identified no studies that looked at the effectiveness or acceptability of psychological therapies for depressive and anxiety symptoms beyond six months. Only a small proportion of included trials reported data on children and adolescents, which provided very low-quality evidence of greater benefit derived from psychological treatments. With regard to acceptability, moderate- to low-quality evidence suggests no differences in dropout rates among adults and children and adolescents. Reviewers found no studies evaluating psychological treatments for (symptoms of) somatoform disorders or medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults, nor in children or adolescents, respectively."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6293
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIncreased ultrasound surveillance of twin pregnancies has become accepted practice due to the higher risk of complications. There is no current consensus however as to the method and frequency of ultrasound monitoring that constitutes optimal care.\nObjectives\nTo systematically review the effects of different types and frequency of ultrasound surveillance for women with a twin pregnancy on neonatal, fetal and maternal outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (all searched 11 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials (including those published in abstract form) comparing the effects of described antenatal ultrasound surveillance regimens in twin pregnancies. Trials using a cluster-randomised design would have been eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. Trials using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion in this review.\nDifferent types and frequencies of ultrasound testing (for fetal surveillance and detection of specific problems) compared with each other and also compared with no testing. For example, an intervention might comprise a specific approach to ultrasound examination with dedicated components to detect twin-specific pathology. Different interventions could also include a specific type of surveillance at different intervals or different combinations at the same intervals.\nIn this review we only found one study looking at fetal growth (biometry) and Doppler ultrasounds at 25, 30 and 35 weeks' gestation versus fetal growth alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and quality, and extracted data. We checked data for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included one trial of 526 women with a twin pregnancy of two viable twins, with no known morphological abnormality, in this review. The trial compared women receiving fetal growth and Doppler ultrasounds at 25, 30 and 35 weeks' gestation to fetal growth alone. We judged the included study to be at low risk of bias however the risk of performance and detection bias were unclear.\nThe primary outcome was the perinatal mortality rate (after randomisation), for which there was no evidence of a clear difference between the fetal growth + Doppler and the fetal growth alone groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 2.41, low-quality evidence) with similar rates in both groups (seven events in the Dopper + fetal growth group and eight in the fetal growth alone group). No clear differences were seen between the two regimens for the other outcomes in this review: stillbirth (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.99), neonatal death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.46, low-quality evidence), gestational age at birth (weeks) (mean difference 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.59, moderate-quality evidence), infant requiring ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25), admission to special care or intensive care units (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05), caesarean section (any) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23, high-quality evidence), elective caesarean section (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.47), emergency caesarean section (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32), induction of labour (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.50, moderate-quality evidence) or antenatal hospital admission (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.15, high-quality evidence). The number of preterm births before 28 weeks' gestation was not reported in the included study. For the mortality-related outcomes, event numbers were small.\nThe included study did not report the majority of our maternal and infant secondary outcomes. Infant outcomes not reported included fetal acidosis, Apgar scores less than 7 at five minutes and preterm birth before 37 and 34 weeks' gestation. The maternal outcomes; length of antenatal hospital stay, timely diagnosis of significant complications, rate of preterm, prelabour rupture of membranes and women's level of satisfaction with their care were not reported. The study did not classify twin pregnancies according to their chorionicity. An awareness of the chorionicity may have improved applicability of this data set.\nWe downgraded outcomes assessed using GRADE for imprecision of effect estimates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review is based on one small study which was underpowered for detection of rare outcomes such as perinatal mortality, stillbirth and neonatal death.\nThere is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform best practice for fetal ultrasound surveillance regimens when caring for women with a twin pregnancy. More studies are needed to evaluate the effects of currently used ultrasound surveillance regimens in twin pregnancies. Future research could report on the important maternal and infant outcomes as listed in this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "From this one study, we still do not know if the different scanning tests and how often they are done improves outcomes for women with a twin pregnancy. Future studies could find that there are differences in the number of infant deaths with the different ways of scanning. More research is needed to find out how often scans should be done and how detailed they should be in order to see whether the twins are growing normally and to pick up any problems quickly."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6294
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.\nObjectives\nTo explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.\nMain results\nWe included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease.\nOur GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings.\nSome factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial.\nOther factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision.\nFinally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.\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 includes studies published before the end of June 2021."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6295
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThere is a large body of evidence evaluating quality improvement (QI) programmes to improve care for adults living with diabetes. These programmes are often comprised of multiple QI strategies, which may be implemented in various combinations. Decision-makers planning to implement or evaluate a new QI programme, or both, need reliable evidence on the relative effectiveness of different QI strategies (individually and in combination) for different patient populations.\nObjectives\nTo update existing systematic reviews of diabetes QI programmes and apply novel meta-analytical techniques to estimate the effectiveness of QI strategies (individually and in combination) on diabetes quality of care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to 4 June 2019. We conducted a top-up search to 23 September 2021; we screened these search results and 42 studies meeting our eligibility criteria are available in the awaiting classification section.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials that assessed a QI programme to improve care in outpatient settings for people living with diabetes. QI programmes needed to evaluate at least one system- or provider-targeted QI strategy alone or in combination with a patient-targeted strategy.\n- System-targeted: case management (CM); team changes (TC); electronic patient registry (EPR); facilitated relay of clinical information (FR); continuous quality improvement (CQI).\n- Provider-targeted: audit and feedback (AF); clinician education (CE); clinician reminders (CR); financial incentives (FI).\n- Patient-targeted: patient education (PE); promotion of self-management (PSM); patient reminders (PR). Patient-targeted QI strategies needed to occur with a minimum of one provider or system-targeted strategy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe dual-screened search results and abstracted data on study design, study population and QI strategies. We assessed the impact of the programmes on 13 measures of diabetes care, including: glycaemic control (e.g. mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); cardiovascular risk factor management (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), proportion of people living with diabetes that quit smoking or receiving cardiovascular medications); and screening/prevention of microvascular complications (e.g. proportion of patients receiving retinopathy or foot screening); and harms (e.g. proportion of patients experiencing adverse hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia). We modelled the association of each QI strategy with outcomes using a series of hierarchical multivariable meta-regression models in a Bayesian framework. The previous version of this review identified that different strategies were more or less effective depending on baseline levels of outcomes. To explore this further, we extended the main additive model for continuous outcomes (HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C) to include an interaction term between each strategy and average baseline risk for each study (baseline thresholds were based on a data-driven approach; we used the median of all baseline values reported in the trials). Based on model diagnostics, the baseline interaction models for HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C performed better than the main model and are therefore presented as the primary analyses for these outcomes. Based on the model results, we qualitatively ordered each QI strategy within three tiers (Top, Middle, Bottom) based on its magnitude of effect relative to the other QI strategies, where 'Top' indicates that the QI strategy was likely one of the most effective strategies for that specific outcome. Secondary analyses explored the sensitivity of results to choices in model specification and priors.\nAdditional information about the methods and results of the review are available as Appendices in an online repository. This review will be maintained as a living systematic review; we will update our syntheses as more data become available.\nMain results\nWe identified 553 trials (428 patient-randomised and 125 cluster-randomised trials), including a total of 412,161 participants. Of the included studies, 66% involved people living with type 2 diabetes only. Participants were 50% female and the median age of participants was 58.4 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 months. HbA1c was the commonest reported outcome; screening outcomes and outcomes related to cardiovascular medications, smoking and harms were reported infrequently. The most frequently evaluated QI strategies across all study arms were PE, PSM and CM, while the least frequently evaluated QI strategies included AF, FI and CQI. Our confidence in the evidence is limited due to a lack of information on how studies were conducted.\nFour QI strategies (CM, TC, PE, PSM) were consistently identified as 'Top' across the majority of outcomes. All QI strategies were ranked as 'Top' for at least one key outcome. The majority of effects of individual QI strategies were modest, but when used in combination could result in meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. The median number of QI strategies in multicomponent QI programmes was three.\nCombinations of the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to the below effects:\n- PR + PSM + CE: decrease in HbA1c by 0.41% (credibility interval (CrI) -0.61 to -0.22) when baseline HbA1c < 8.3%;\n- CM + PE + EPR: decrease in HbA1c by 0.62% (CrI -0.84 to -0.39) when baseline HbA1c > 8.3%;\n- PE + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 2.14 mmHg (CrI -3.80 to -0.52) when baseline SBP < 136 mmHg;\n- CM + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 4.39 mmHg (CrI -6.20 to -2.56) when baseline SBP > 136 mmHg;\n- TC + PE + CM: LDL-C lowering of 5.73 mg/dL (CrI -7.93 to -3.61) when baseline LDL < 107 mg/dL;\n- TC + CM + CR: LDL-C lowering by 5.52 mg/dL (CrI -9.24 to -1.89) when baseline LDL > 107 mg/dL.\nAssuming a baseline screening rate of 50%, the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to an absolute improvement of 33% in retinopathy screening (PE + PR + TC) and 38% absolute increase in foot screening (PE + TC + Other).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a significant body of evidence about QI programmes to improve the management of diabetes. Multicomponent QI programmes for diabetes care (comprised of effective QI strategies) may achieve meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. For health system decision-makers, the evidence summarised in this review can be used to identify strategies to include in QI programmes. For researchers, this synthesis identifies higher-priority QI strategies to examine in further research regarding how to optimise their evaluation and effects. We will maintain this as a living systematic review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for randomised trials including adults living with diabetes managed in outpatient settings, which evaluated at least one quality improvement strategy. Although we were interested in strategies directed at people living with diabetes, patient strategies needed to be tested in combination with strategies directed at healthcare organisations or professionals for the study to be included. We summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods, size and other considerations."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6296
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSince December 2019, the world has struggled with the COVID-19 pandemic. Even after the introduction of various vaccines, this disease still takes a considerable toll. In order to improve the optimal allocation of resources and communication of prognosis, healthcare providers and patients need an accurate understanding of factors (such as obesity) that are associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes from the COVID-19 infection.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate obesity as an independent prognostic factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality among adult patients in whom infection with the COVID-19 virus is confirmed.\nSearch methods\nMEDLINE, Embase, two COVID-19 reference collections, and four Chinese biomedical databases were searched up to April 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included case-control, case-series, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and secondary analyses of randomised controlled trials if they evaluated associations between obesity and COVID-19 adverse outcomes including mortality, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospitalisation, severe COVID, and COVID pneumonia. Given our interest in ascertaining the independent association between obesity and these outcomes, we selected studies that adjusted for at least one factor other than obesity. Studies were evaluated for inclusion by two independent reviewers working in duplicate.\nData collection and analysis\nUsing standardised data extraction forms, we extracted relevant information from the included studies. When appropriate, we pooled the estimates of association across studies with the use of random-effects meta-analyses. The Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool provided the platform for assessing the risk of bias across each included study. In our main comparison, we conducted meta-analyses for each obesity class separately. We also meta-analysed unclassified obesity and obesity as a continuous variable (5 kg/m2 increase in BMI (body mass index)). We used the GRADE framework to rate our certainty in the importance of the association observed between obesity and each outcome. As obesity is closely associated with other comorbidities, we decided to prespecify the minimum adjustment set of variables including age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease for subgroup analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified 171 studies, 149 of which were included in meta-analyses. As compared to 'normal' BMI (18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2) or patients without obesity, those with obesity classes I (BMI 30 to 35 kg/m2), and II (BMI 35 to 40 kg/m2) were not at increased odds for mortality (Class I: odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.16, high certainty (15 studies, 335,209 participants); Class II: OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36, high certainty (11 studies, 317,925 participants)). However, those with class III obesity (BMI 40 kg/m2 and above) may be at increased odds for mortality (Class III: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.00, low certainty, (19 studies, 354,967 participants)) compared to normal BMI or patients without obesity. For mechanical ventilation, we observed increasing odds with higher classes of obesity in comparison to normal BMI or patients without obesity (class I: OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.59, 10 studies, 187,895 participants, moderate certainty; class II: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.96, 6 studies, 171,149 participants, high certainty; class III: OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.97, 12 studies, 174,520 participants, high certainty). However, we did not observe a dose-response relationship across increasing obesity classifications for ICU admission and hospitalisation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur findings suggest that obesity is an important independent prognostic factor in the setting of COVID-19. Consideration of obesity may inform the optimal management and allocation of limited resources in the care of COVID-19 patients.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We conducted a systematic search in medical databases for evidence looking at the association of obesity and mortality and other outcomes from December 2019 to April 2021. We then categorised and rated these findings based on our confidence in the evidence, study size, and quality."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6297
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHerpes simplex labialis (HSL), also known as cold sores, is a common disease of the lips caused by the herpes simplex virus, which is found throughout the world. It presents as a painful vesicular eruption, forming unsightly crusts, which cause cosmetic disfigurement and psychosocial distress. There is no cure available, and it recurs periodically.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for the prevention of HSL in people of all ages.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 19 May 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Oral Health Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, Airiti Library, and 5 trial registers. To identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials, we scanned the bibliographies of included studies and published reviews, and we also contacted the original researchers of our included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing HSL in immunocompetent people.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A third author was available for resolving differences of opinion.\nMain results\nThis review included 32 RCTs, with a total of 2640 immunocompetent participants, covering 19 treatments. The quality of the body of evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes, but was very low for a few outcomes. Our primary outcomes were 'Incidence of HSL' and 'Adverse effects during use of the preventative intervention'.\nThe evidence for short-term (≤ 1 month) use of oral aciclovir in preventing recurrent HSL was inconsistent across the doses used in the studies: 2 RCTs showed low quality evidence for a reduced recurrence of HSL with aciclovir 400 mg twice daily (risk ratio (RR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.51; n = 177), while 1 RCT testing aciclovir 800 mg twice daily and 2 RCTs testing 200 mg 5 times daily found no similar preventive effects (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.87; n = 237; moderate quality evidence and RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.07; n = 66; low quality evidence, respectively). The direction of intervention effect was unrelated to the risk of bias. The evidence from 1 RCT for the effect of short-term use of valaciclovir in reducing recurrence of HSL by clinical evaluation was uncertain (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.28; n = 125; moderate quality evidence), as was the evidence from 1 RCT testing short-term use of famciclovir.\nLong-term (> 1 month) use of oral antiviral agents reduced the recurrence of HSL. There was low quality evidence from 1 RCT that long-term use of oral aciclovir reduced clinical recurrences (1.80 versus 0.85 episodes per participant per a 4-month period, P = 0.009) and virological recurrence (1.40 versus 0.40 episodes per participant per a 4-month period, P = 0.003). One RCT found long-term use of valaciclovir effective in reducing the incidence of HSL (with a decrease of 0.09 episodes per participant per month; n = 95). One RCT found that a long-term suppressive regimen of valaciclovir had a lower incidence of HSL than an episodic regimen of valciclovir (difference in means (MD) -0.10 episodes per participant per month, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.05; n = 120).\nThese trials found no increase in adverse events associated with the use of oral antiviral agents (moderate quality evidence).\nThere was no evidence to show that short-term use of topical antiviral agents prevented recurrent HSL. There was moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs that topical aciclovir 5% cream probably has little effect on preventing recurrence of HSL (pooled RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72; n = 271). There was moderate quality evidence from a single RCT that topical foscarnet 3% cream has little effect in preventing HSL (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40; n = 295).\nThe efficacy of long-term use of topical aciclovir cream was uncertain. One RCT found significantly fewer research-diagnosed recurrences of HSL when on aciclovir cream treatment than on placebo (P < 0.05), but found no significant differences in the mean number of participant-reported recurrences between the 2 groups (P ≥ 0.05). One RCT found no preventive effect of topical application of 1,5-pentanediol gel for 26 weeks (P > 0.05). Another RCT found that the group who used 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclo dextrin 20% gel for 6 months had significantly more recurrences than the placebo group (P = 0.003).\nThese studies found no increase in adverse events related to the use of topical antiviral agents.\nTwo RCTs found that the application of sunscreen significantly prevented recurrent HSL induced by experimental ultraviolet light (pooled RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.33; n = 111), but another RCT found that sunscreen did not prevent HSL induced by sunlight (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.06; n = 51). These RCTs did not report adverse events.\nThere were very few data suggesting that thymopentin, low-level laser therapy, and hypnotherapy are effective in preventing recurrent HSL, with one to two RCTs for each intervention. We failed to find any evidence of efficacy for lysine, LongoVital® supplementation, gamma globulin, herpes simplex virus (HSV) type I subunit vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine in preventing HSL. There were no consistent data supporting the efficacy of levamisole and interferon, which were also associated with an increased risk of adverse effects such as fever.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence demonstrates that long-term use of oral antiviral agents can prevent HSL, but the clinical benefit is small. We did not find evidence of an increased risk of adverse events. On the other hand, the evidence on topical antiviral agents and other interventions either showed no efficacy or could not confirm their efficacy in preventing HSL.\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": "Long-term use of antiviral drugs taken by mouth prevented cold sores, though with a very small decrease of 0.09 episodes per person per month. The preventative effect of long-term use of aciclovir cream applied to the lips was uncertain. Long-term use of 1,5-pentanediol gel and 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclo dextrin 20% gel applied to the lips did not prevent cold sores.\nShort-term use of either antiviral drugs or creams did not prevent cold sores. Neither short-term nor long-term use of these antiviral drugs or creams appeared to cause side-effects.\nThe preventative effects of sunscreen were uncertain. Application of sunscreen prevented cold sores induced by experimental ultraviolet light, but did not prevent cold sores induced by sunlight.\nWe found very little evidence about the preventative effects of thymopentin, low-energy laser, and hypnotherapy for cold sores. The available evidence found no preventative effects of lysine, LongoVital® supplementation, gamma globulin, herpes virus vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine. There were no consistent data to confirm that levamisole and interferon do prevent cold sores.\nThese studies found no increase in adverse events related to the use of topical antiviral agents."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6298
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPrimary angle-closure glaucoma is a type of glaucoma associated with a physically obstructed anterior chamber angle. For example, contact between the iris and lens at the pupillary margin creates a pupillary block that increases resistance to aqueous outflow. Obstruction of the anterior chamber angle blocks drainage of fluids (aqueous humor) within the eye and may raise intraocular pressure (IOP). Elevated IOP is associated with glaucomatous optic nerve damage and visual field loss. Laser peripheral iridotomy ('iridotomy') is a procedure to eliminate pupillary block by allowing aqueous humor to pass directly from the posterior to anterior chamber, which is achieved by creating a hole in the iris using laser. Iridotomy is used to treat patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma, patients with primary angle-closure (narrow angles and no signs of glaucomatous optic neuropathy), and patients who are primary angle-closure suspects (patients with reversible obstruction). However, the effectiveness of iridotomy on slowing progression of visual field loss is uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of iridotomy compared with no iridotomy for primary angle-closure glaucoma, primary angle-closure, and primary angle-closure suspect.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 10), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; PubMed; LILACS; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared iridotomy with no iridotomy in primary angle-closure suspects, people with primary angle-closure, or people with primary angle-closure glaucoma in one or both eyes were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for prespecified outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified four studies (3086 eyes of 1543 participants) that compared iridotomy with no iridotomy in participants (range of mean age 59.6 to 62.9 years) who were primary angle-closure suspects from China, Singapore, or the UK. Study investigators randomized one eye of each participant to iridotomy and the other to no iridotomy. Two studies provided long-term (five or more years) results. We judged the certainty of the evidence as moderate to low across the prespecified outcomes, downgrading for high risk of bias (e.g. performance and detection biases) and imprecision of results.\nMeta-analyses of data from two studies suggest that iridotomy probably results in little to no difference in IOP compared with no iridotomy at one year (mean difference (MD) 0.04 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.17 to 0.24; I2 = 65%; 2598 eyes of 1299 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and five years (MD 0.12 mm Hg, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.35; I2 = 0%; 2016 eyes of 1008 participants), and in best-corrected visual acuity measured as logMAR at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 69%; 2596 eyes of 1298 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and five years (MD 0.01, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.03; I2 = 0%; 2002 eyes of 1001 participants). In terms of gonioscopic findings, eyes treated with iridotomy likely had wider angles in Shaffer grading scale (MD 4.93 units, 95% CI 4.73 to 5.12; I2 = 59%; 2598 eyes of 1299 participants at one year; MD 5.07, 95% CI 4.78 to 5.36; I2 = 97%; 2016 eyes of 1008 participants at five years; moderate certainty evidence) and experienced fewer peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) than eyes that received no iridotomy at five years (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67; I2 = 28%; 2 studies, 2738 eyes of 1369 participants), but the evidence was less conclusive at one year (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.54; I2 = 57%; 3 studies, 2896 eyes of 1448 participants; low certainty evidence). No studies reported data on the proportion of participants with progressive visual field loss during follow-up (the primary outcome of this review), mean number of medications to control IOP, or quality of life outcomes. Low certainty evidence suggests that iridotomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of acute angle-closure (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3006 eyes of 1503 participants). Other ocular adverse events (e.g. eye pain, dry eye, redness of eyes, and ocular discomfort), although rare, were more common in eyes treated with iridotomy than in eyes in the control group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not find sufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions on the use of iridotomy for the purpose of slowing progression of visual field loss. No study reported on progressive visual field loss, the primary outcome of this review. Although there is moderate certainty evidence that iridotomy results in improved gonioscopic findings, in is unclear if these findings translate to clinically meaningful benefits.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out whether iridotomy compared with no iridotomy can slow progression (or development) of visual field loss in (1) people with primary angle-closure glaucoma, (2) people with primary angle-closure, and (3) people who are suspected of having primary angle-closure."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6299
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPostoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have deleterious effects. It has been suggested that the administration of opioid analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. This can be done in two ways. We defined 'preventive opioids' as opioids administered before incision and continued postoperatively, and 'pre-emptive opioids' as opioids given before incision but not continued postoperatively. Both pre-emptive and preventive analgesia involve the initiation of an analgesic agent prior to surgical incision with the aim of reducing intraoperative nociception and therefore postoperative pain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive opioids for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and CINAHL (up to 18 March 2018). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included participants aged over 15 years old undergoing any type of surgery. We defined postincision opioids as the same intervention administered after incision whether single dose (as comparator with pre-emptive analgesia) or continued postoperatively (as comparator with preventive analgesia) (control group). We considered studies that did and did not use a double-dummy placebo (e.g. intervention group received active drug before incision and placebo after incision; control group received placebo before incision and active drug after incision).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: early acute postoperative pain (measured within six hours and reported on a 0-to-10 scale) and respiratory depression. Our secondary outcomes included: late acute postoperative pain (24 to 48 hours and reported on a 0-to-10 scale), 24-hour morphine consumption, and adverse events (intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension). We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 20 RCTs, including one unpublished study with 1343 participants. Two studies were awaiting classification as the full text for these studies was not available. One study evaluated pre-emptive opioids, and 19 studies evaluated preventive opioids. We considered only one study to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The surgeries and opioids used varied, although roughly half of the included studies were conducted in abdominal hysterectomy, and around a quarter used morphine as the intervention. All studies were conducted in secondary care.\nPre-emptive opioids compared to postincision opioids\nFor pre-emptive opioids in dental surgery, there may be a reduction in early acute postoperative pain (mean difference (MD) -1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.75 to -0.65; 40 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). This study did not report on adverse events (respiratory depression, bradycardia, or hypotension). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -2.10, 95% CI -2.57 to -1.63; 40 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). This study did not report 24-hour morphine consumption.\nPreventive opioids compared to postincision opioids\nFor preventive opioids, there was probably no reduction in early acute postoperative pain (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.53; 706 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 61%; moderate-quality evidence). There were no events of respiratory depression in four studies (433 participants). There was no important reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 668 participants; 9 studies; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There may be a small reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -4.91 mg, 95% CI -9.39 mg to -0.44 mg; 526 participants; 11 studies; I2 = 82%; very low-quality evidence). There may be similar rates of bradycardia (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; 112 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.73; 88 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether pre-emptive opioids reduce postoperative pain. Based on the trials conducted thus far, there was no clear evidence that preventive opioids result in reductions in pain scores. It was unclear if there was a reduction in morphine consumption due to very low-quality of evidence. Too few studies reported adverse events to be able to draw any definitive conclusions. Once assessed, the two studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In one small trial (40 participants) involving people undergoing dental surgery, use of pre-emptive opioids resulted in a small reduction in pain experienced in the first six hours after surgery and at 24 to 48 hours based on low-quality evidence. This study did not report on adverse events or 24-hour morphine consumption.\nFor preventive opioids started before the first cut was made and continued over the first day after surgery, pain in the first six hours after surgery was similar to when the first opioid dose was given after the first cut to the skin (10 studies; 706 participants). Postoperative pain 24 to 48 hours after surgery was similar between groups (9 studies; 668 participants). The evidence for both these findings was of moderate quality. The following findings were supported by low- or very low-quality evidence. A reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption was too small to be clinically relevant (11 studies; 526 participants). Not all studies reported on adverse events, but the numbers of participants with respiratory depression (4 studies; 433 participants), low heart rate (2 studies; 112 participants), or low blood pressure (2 studies; 88 participants) were similar between groups."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6301
|
[
{
"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 interventions have been used, or proposed to be used, as prophylaxis for this condition, to help reduce the frequency of the attacks. Many of these interventions include dietary, lifestyle or behavioural changes, rather than medication.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of non-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 dietary modifications, sleep improvement techniques, vitamin and mineral supplements, herbal supplements, talking therapies, mind-body interventions or vestibular rehabilitation 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 in this review with a total of 319 participants. Each study addressed a different comparison and these are outlined below. We did not identify any evidence for the remaining comparisons of interest in this review.\nDietary interventions (probiotics) versus placebo\nWe identified one study with 218 participants (85% female). The use of a probiotic supplement was compared to a placebo and participants were followed up for two years. Some data were reported on the change in vertigo frequency and severity over the duration of the study. However, there were no data regarding improvement of vertigo or serious adverse events.\nCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus no intervention\nOne study compared CBT to no treatment in 61 participants (72% female). Participants were followed up for eight weeks. Data were reported on the change in vertigo over the course of the study, but no information was reported on the proportion of people whose vertigo improved, or on the occurrence of serious adverse events.\nVestibular rehabilitation versus no intervention\nThe third study compared the use of vestibular rehabilitation to no treatment in a group of 40 participants (90% female) and participants were followed up for six months. Again, this study reported some data on change in the frequency of vertigo during the study, but no information on the proportion of participants who experienced an improvement in vertigo or the number who experienced serious adverse events.\nWe are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results of these studies, as the data for each comparison of interest come from single, small studies and the certainty of the evidence was low or very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a paucity of evidence for non-pharmacological interventions that may be used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. Only a limited number of interventions have been assessed by comparing them to no intervention or a placebo treatment, and the evidence from these studies is all of low or very low certainty. We are therefore unsure whether any of these interventions may be effective at reducing the symptoms of vestibular migraine and we are also unsure whether they have the potential to cause harm.\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. Sometimes people may also try non-drug treatments to help prevent or improve their symptoms and try to reduce how often attacks occur. This might include changing their diet (such as eating less salt) or taking supplements (such as vitamins or minerals). Other treatments range from talking therapies to physiotherapy."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6302
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBreast cancer is the most frequently occurring malignancy and the second cause of death for cancer in women. Cancer prevention agents (CPAs) are a promising approach to reduce the burden of breast cancer. Currently, two main types of CPAs are available: selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs, such as tamoxifen and raloxifene) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs, such as exemestane and anastrozole).\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and acceptability of single CPAs for the prevention of primary breast cancer, in unaffected women, at an above-average risk of developing breast cancer.\nUsing a network meta-analysis, to rank single CPAs, based on their efficacy and acceptability (an endpoint that is defined as the inverse of CPA-related toxicity).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 17 August 2018. We handsearched reference lists to identify additional relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled women without a personal history of breast cancer but with an above-average risk of developing a tumor. Women had to be treated with a CPA and followed up to record the occurrence of breast cancer and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments of the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Outcome data included incidence of breast carcinoma (both invasive and in situ carcinoma) and adverse events (both overall and severe toxicity). We performed a conventional meta-analysis (for direct comparisons of a single CPA with placebo or a different CPA) and network meta-analysis (for indirect comparisons).\nMain results\nWe included six studies enrolling 50,927 women randomized to receive one CPA (SERMs: tamoxifen or raloxifene, or AIs: exemestane or anastrozole) or placebo. Three studies compared tamoxifen and placebo, two studies compared AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) versus placebo, and one study compared tamoxifen versus raloxifene. The risk of bias was low for all RCTs.\nFor the tamoxifen versus placebo comparison, tamoxifen likely resulted in a lower risk of developing breast cancer compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.76; 3 studies, 22,832 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, tamoxifen likely increased the risk of severe toxicity compared to placebo (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47; 2 studies, 20,361 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In particular, women randomized to receive tamoxifen experienced a higher incidence of both endometrial carcinoma (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.38; high-certainty evidence) and thromboembolism (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.89; high-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo.\nFor the AIs versus placebo comparison, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) reduced the risk of breast cancer by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63; 2 studies, 8424 women; high-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, AIs increased the risk of severe toxicity by 18% (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28; 2 studies, 8352 women; high-certainty evidence). These differences were sustained especially by endocrine (e.g. hot flashes), gastrointestinal (e.g. diarrhea), and musculoskeletal (e.g. arthralgia) adverse events, while there were no differences in endometrial cancer or thromboembolism rates between AIs and placebo.\nFor the tamoxifen versus raloxifene comparison, raloxifene probably performed worse than tamoxifen in terms of breast cancer incidence reduction (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.43; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), but its use was associated with lower toxicity rates (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), particularly relating to incidence of endometrial cancer and thromboembolism.\nAn indirect comparison of treatment effects allowed us to compare the SERMs and AIs in this review. In terms of efficacy, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) may have reduced breast cancer incidence slightly compared to tamoxifen (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; 5 RCTs, 31,256 women); however, the certainty of evidence was low. A lack of model convergence did not allow us to analyze toxicity data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor women with an above-average risk of developing breast cancer, CPAs can reduce the incidence of this disease. AIs appear to be more effective than SERMs (tamoxifen) in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer. AIs are not associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. However, long-term data on toxicities from tamoxifen are available while the follow-up toxicity data on unaffected women taking AIs is relatively short. Additional data from direct comparisons are needed to fully address the issues of breast cancer prevention by risk-reducing medications, with special regards to acceptability (i.e. the benefit/harm ratio).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to 17 August 2018."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6303
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWhen couples are faced with the dilemma of a higher-order multiple pregnancy there are three options. Termination of the entire pregnancy has generally not been acceptable to women, especially for those with a past history of infertility. Attempting to continue with all the fetuses is associated with inherent problems of preterm birth, survival and long-term morbidity. The other alternative relates to reduction in the number of fetuses by selective termination. The acceptability of these options for the couple will depend on their social background and underlying beliefs. This review focused on reduction in the number of fetuses.\nObjectives\nTo assess a policy of multifetal reduction with a policy of expectant management of women with a multiple pregnancy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies who were managed expectantly with outcomes in women who underwent selective fetal reduction of a multiple pregnancy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned that two review authors would independently assess trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extract data and check them for accuracy. However, no randomised trials were identified.\nMain results\nThere were no randomised controlled trials identified.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no available data from randomised trials to inform the risks and benefits of pregnancy reduction procedures for women with a multiple pregnancy. While randomised controlled trials will provide the most reliable evidence about the risks and benefits of fetal reduction procedures, reduction in the number of fetuses by selective termination may not be acceptable to women, particularly couples with a past history of infertility. The acceptability of this option, and willingness to undergo randomisation will depend on the couple's social background and beliefs, and consequently, recruitment to such a trial may prove exceptionally difficult.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Pregnancy reduction is a very difficult decision for parents. Parents need a full picture of the possible outcomes. Without studies to show if termination is likely to benefit the remaining fetus or fetuses, and what the risks may be, it is harder to make a fully-informed choice."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6304
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHeart failure (HF) is a chronic disease with significant impact on quality of life and presents many challenges to those diagnosed with the condition, due to a seemingly complex daily regimen of self-care which includes medications, monitoring of weight and symptoms, identification of signs of deterioration and follow-up and interaction with multiple healthcare services. Education is vital for understanding the importance of this regimen, and adhering to it. Traditionally, education has been provided to people with heart failure in a face-to-face manner, either in a community or a hospital setting, using paper-based materials or video/DVD presentations. In an age of rapidly-evolving technology and uptake of smartphones and tablet devices, mHealth-based technology (defined by the World Health Organization as mobile and wireless technologies to achieve health objectives) is an innovative way to provide health education which has the benefit of being able to reach people who are unable or unwilling to access traditional heart failure education programmes and services.\nObjectives\nTo systematically review and quantify the potential benefits and harms of mHealth-delivered education for people with heart failure.\nSearch methods\nWe performed an extensive search of bibliographic databases and registries (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal), using terms to identify HF, education and mHealth. We searched all databases from their inception to October 2019 and imposed no restriction on language of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies if they were conducted as a randomised controlled trial (RCT), involving adults (≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of HF. We included trials comparing mHealth-delivered education such as internet and web-based education programmes for use on smartphones and tablets (including apps) and other mobile devices, SMS messages and social media-delivered education programmes, versus usual HF care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data from all included studies. We calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data and the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe include five RCTs (971 participants) of mHealth-delivered education interventions for people with HF in this review. The number of trial participants ranged from 28 to 512 participants. Mean age of participants ranged from 60 years to 75 years, and 63% of participants across the studies were men. Studies originated from Australia, China, Iran, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Most studies included participants with symptomatic HF, NYHA Class II - III.\nThree studies addressed HF knowledge, revealing that the use of mHealth-delivered education programmes showed no evidence of a difference in HF knowledge compared to usual care (MD 0.10, 95% CI −0.2 to 0.40, P = 0.51, I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 411 participants; low-quality evidence). One study assessing self-efficacy reported that both study groups had high levels of self-efficacy at baseline and uncertainty in the evidence for the intervention (MD 0.60, 95% CI −0.57 to 1.77; P = 0.31; 1 study, 29 participants; very low-quality evidence).Three studies evaluated HF self-care using different scales. We did not pool the studies due to the heterogenous nature of the outcome measures, and the evidence is uncertain. None of the studies reported adverse events. Four studies examined health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There was uncertainty in the evidence for the use of mHealth-delivered education on HRQoL (MD −0.10, 95% CI −2.35 to 2.15; P = 0.93, I2 = 61%; 4 studies, 942 participants; very low-quality evidence). Three studies reported on HF-related hospitalisation. The use of mHealth-delivered education may result in little to no difference in HF-related hospitalisation (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.06; P = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 894 participants; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the studies due to limitations in study design and execution, heterogeneity, wide confidence intervals and fewer than 500 participants in the analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that the use of mHealth-delivered educational interventions for people with HF shows no evidence of a difference in HF knowledge; uncertainty in the evidence for self-efficacy, self-care and health-related quality of life; and may result in little to no difference in HF-related hospitalisations. The identification of studies currently underway and those awaiting classification indicate that this is an area of research from which further evidence will emerge in the short and longer term.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found studies by searches conducted in October 2019."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6305
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAerosols and spatter are generated in a dental clinic during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) that use high-speed hand pieces. Dental healthcare providers can be at increased risk of transmission of diseases such as tuberculosis, measles and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) through droplets on mucosae, inhalation of aerosols or through fomites on mucosae, which harbour micro-organisms. There are ways to mitigate and contain spatter and aerosols that may, in turn, reduce any risk of disease transmission. In addition to personal protective equipment (PPE) and aerosol-reducing devices such as high-volume suction, it has been hypothesised that the use of mouth rinse by patients before dental procedures could reduce the microbial load of aerosols that are generated during dental AGPs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of preprocedural mouth rinses used in dental clinics to minimise incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers and reduce or neutralise contamination in aerosols.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials and excluded laboratory-based studies. Study participants were dental patients undergoing AGPs. Studies compared any preprocedural mouth rinse used to reduce contaminated aerosols versus placebo, no mouth rinse or another mouth rinse. Our primary outcome was incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers and secondary outcomes were reduction in the level of contamination of the dental operatory environment, cost, change in mouth microbiota, adverse events, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened search results, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data\nMain results\nWe included 17 studies with 830 participants aged 18 to 70 years. We judged three trials at high risk of bias, two at low risk and 12 at unclear risk of bias.\nNone of the studies measured our primary outcome of the incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers.\nThe primary outcome in the studies was reduction in the level of bacterial contamination measured in colony-forming units (CFUs) at distances of less than 2 m (intended to capture larger droplets) and 2 m or more (to capture droplet nuclei from aerosols arising from the participant's oral cavity). It is unclear what size of CFU reduction represents a clinically significant amount.\nThere is low- to very low-certainty evidence that chlorhexidine (CHX) may reduce bacterial contamination, as measured by CFUs, compared with no rinsing or rinsing with water. There were similar results when comparing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) with no rinsing and when comparing CPC, essential oils/herbal mouthwashes or boric acid with water. There is very low-certainty evidence that tempered mouth rinses may provide a greater reduction in CFUs than cold mouth rinses. There is low-certainty evidence that CHX may reduce CFUs more than essential oils/herbal mouthwashes. The evidence for other head-to-head comparisons was limited and inconsistent.\nThe studies did not provide any information on costs, change in micro-organisms in the patient's mouth or adverse events such as temporary discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction or hypersensitivity. The studies did not assess acceptability of the intervention to patients or feasibility of implementation for dentists.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNone of the included studies measured the incidence of infection among dental healthcare providers. The studies measured only reduction in level of bacterial contamination in aerosols. None of the studies evaluated viral or fungal contamination. We have only low to very low certainty for all findings. We are unable to draw conclusions regarding whether there is a role for preprocedural mouth rinses in reducing infection risk or the possible superiority of one preprocedural rinse over another. Studies are needed that measure the effect of rinses on infectious disease risk among dental healthcare providers and on contaminated aerosols at larger distances with standardised outcome measurement.\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 17 studies that met our inclusion criteria. These studies used chlorhexidine, CPC, essential oil/herbal mouth rinses, povidone iodine and boric acid in comparison to no rinsing, or rinsing with water, saline (salt water) or another mouth rinse. None of the studies measured the how often dental healthcare providers became infected with micro-organisms. All the included studies measured the level of bacterial contamination in droplets or aerosols in the dental clinic. They did not examine contamination with viruses or fungi.\nMost rinses decreased bacterial contamination in aerosols to some extent, but there was considerable variation in the effects and we do not know what size of reduction is necessary to reduce infection risk.\nThe studies did not provide any information on costs, change in micro-organisms in the patient's mouth or side effects such as temporary discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction or hypersensitivity. The studies did not assess whether patients were happy to use a mouth rinse or whether it was easy for dentists to implement.\nOverall, the results suggest that using a preprocedural mouth rinse may reduce the level of bacterial contamination in aerosols compared with no rinsing or rinsing with water, but we have only low or very low certainty that the evidence is reliable and we do not know how this reduction in contamination relates to the risk of infection."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6306
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCataract surgery is practiced widely, and substantial resources are committed to an increasing cataract surgical rate in low- and middle-income countries. With the current volume of cataract surgery and future increases, it is critical to optimize the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure. Most cataracts are performed on older individuals with correspondingly high systemic and ocular comorbidities. It is likely that routine preoperative medical testing will detect medical conditions, but it is questionable whether these conditions should preclude individuals from cataract surgery or change their perioperative management.\nObjectives\n1. To investigate the evidence for reductions in adverse events through preoperative medical testing\n2. To estimate the average cost of performing routine medical testing\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; LILACS BIREME, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (last searched 5 January 2012); ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 29 June 2018, with the exception of mRCT which is no longer in service. We searched the references of reports from included studies for additional relevant studies without restrictions regarding language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized clinical trials in which routine preoperative medical testing was compared to no preoperative or selective preoperative testing prior to age-related cataract surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed abstracts to identify possible trials for inclusion. For each included study, two review authors independently documented study characteristics, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.\nMain results\nWe identified three randomized clinical trials that compared routine preoperative medical testing versus selective or no preoperative testing for 21,531 cataract surgeries. The largest trial, in which 19,557 surgeries were randomized, was conducted in Canada and the USA. Another study was conducted in Brazil and the third in Italy. Although the studies had some issues with respect to performance and detection bias due to lack of masking (high risk for one study, unclear for two studies), we assessed the studies as at overall low risk of bias.\nThe three randomized clinical trials included in this review reported results for 21,531 total cataract surgeries with 707 total surgery-associated medical adverse events, including 61 hospitalizations and three deaths. Of the 707 medical adverse events reported, 353 occurred in the pre-testing group and 354 occurred in the no-testing group (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.16; high-certainty evidence). Most events were cardiovascular and occurred during the intraoperative period. Routine preoperative medical testing did not reduce the risk of intraoperative (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.38) or postoperative ocular adverse events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.67) when compared to selective or no testing (2 studies; 2281 cataract surgeries; moderate-certainty evidence). One study evaluated cost savings, estimating the costs to be 2.55 times higher in those with preoperative medical testing compared to those without preoperative medical testing (1 study; 1005 cataract surgeries; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference in cancellation of surgery between those with preoperative medical testing and those with selective or no preoperative testing, reported by two studies with 20,582 cataract surgeries (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21; high-certainty evidence). No study reported outcomes related to clinical management changes (other than cancellation) or quality of life scores.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review has shown that routine preoperative testing does not increase the safety of cataract surgery. Alternatives to routine preoperative medical testing have been proposed, including self administered health questionnaires, which could substitute for health provider histories and physical examinations. Such avenues may lead to cost-effective means of identifying those at increased risk of medical adverse events due to cataract surgery. However, despite the rare occurrence, adverse medical events precipitated by cataract surgery remain a concern because of the large number of elderly patients with multiple medical comorbidities who have cataract surgery in various settings. The studies summarized in this review should assist recommendations for the standard of care of cataract surgery, at least in low- and middle-income settings. Unfortunately, in these settings, medical history questionnaires may be useless to screen for risk because few people have ever been to a physician, let alone been diagnosed with any chronic disease.\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": "Preoperative medical testing did not reduce the risk of medical adverse events during or after cataract surgery when compared to selective or no testing."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6307
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlcohol dependence is a major public health problem characterized by recidivism, and medical and psychosocial complications. The co-occurrence of major depression in people entering treatment for alcohol dependence is common, and represents a risk factor for morbidity and mortality, which negatively influences treatment outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and risks of antidepressants for the treatment of people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to July 2017. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/).\nAll searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing antidepressants alone or in association with other drugs or psychosocial interventions (or both) versus placebo, no treatment, and other pharmacological or psychosocial interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 33 studies in the review (2242 participants). Antidepressants were compared to placebo (22 studies), psychotherapy (two studies), other medications (four studies), or other antidepressants (five studies). The mean duration of the trials was 9.9 weeks (range 3 to 26 weeks). Eighteen studies took place in the USA, 12 in Europe, two in Turkey, and one in Australia. The antidepressant included in most of the trials was sertraline; other medications were amitriptyline, citalopram, desipramine, doxepin, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, mianserin, mirtazepine, nefazodone, paroxetine, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and viloxazine. Eighteen studies were conducted in an outpatient setting, nine in an inpatient setting, and six in both settings. Psychosocial treatment was provided in 18 studies. There was high heterogeneity in the selection of outcomes and the rating systems used for diagnosis and outcome assessment.\nComparing antidepressants to placebo, low-quality evidence suggested that antidepressants reduced the severity of depression evaluated with interviewer-rated scales at the end of trial (14 studies, 1074 participants, standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.49 to -0.04). However, the difference became non-significant after the exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.04). In addition, very low-quality evidence supported the efficacy of antidepressants in increasing the response to the treatment (10 studies, 805 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% Cl 1.08 to 1.82). This result became non-significant after the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.68). There was no difference for other relevant outcomes such as the difference between baseline and final score, evaluated using interviewer-rated scales (5 studies, 447 participants, SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.42).\nModerate-quality evidence found that antidepressants increased the number of participants abstinent from alcohol during the trial (7 studies, 424 participants, RR 1.71, 95% Cl 1.22 to 2.39) and reduced the number of drinks per drinking days (7 studies, 451 participants, mean difference (MD) -1.13 drinks per drinking days, 95% Cl -1.79 to -0.46). After the exclusion of studies with high risk of bias, the number of abstinent remained higher (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.43) and the number of drinks per drinking days lower (MD -1.21 number of drinks per drinking days, 95% CI -1.91 to -0.51) among participants who received antidepressants compared to those who received placebo. However, other outcomes such as the rate of abstinent days did not differ between antidepressants and placebo (9 studies, 821 participants, MD 1.34, 95% Cl -1.66 to 4.34; low-quality evidence).\nLow-quality evidence suggested no differences between antidepressants and placebo in the number of dropouts (17 studies, 1159 participants, RR 0.98, 95% Cl 0.79 to 1.22) and adverse events as withdrawal for medical reasons (10 studies, 947 participants, RR 1.15, 95% Cl 0.65 to 2.04).\nThere were few studies comparing one antidepressant versus another antidepressant or antidepressants versus other interventions, and these had a small sample size and were heterogeneous in terms of the types of interventions that were compared, yielding results that were not informative.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low-quality evidence supporting the clinical use of antidepressants in the treatment of people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence. Antidepressants had positive effects on certain relevant outcomes related to depression and alcohol use but not on other relevant outcomes. Moreover, most of these positive effects were no longer significant when studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Results were limited by the large number of studies showing high or unclear risk of bias and the low number of studies comparing one antidepressant to another or antidepressants to other medication. In people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence, the risk of developing adverse effects appeared to be minimal, especially for the newer classes of antidepressants (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). According to these results, in people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence, antidepressants may be useful for the treatment of depression, alcohol dependence, or both, although the clinical relevance may be modest.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current up to July 2017."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6308
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPit and fissure sealants are plastic materials that are used to seal deep pits and fissures on the occlusal surfaces of teeth, where decay occurs most often in children and adolescents. Deep pits and fissures can retain food debris and bacteria, making them difficult to clean, thereby causing them to be more susceptible to dental caries. The application of a pit and fissure sealant, a non-invasive preventive approach, can prevent dental caries by forming a protective barrier that reduces food entrapment and bacterial growth. Though moderate-certainty evidence shows that sealants are effective in preventing caries in permanent teeth, the effectiveness of applying pit and fissure sealants to primary teeth has yet to be established.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of sealants compared to no sealant or a different sealant in preventing pit and fissure caries on the occlusal surfaces of primary molars in children and to report the adverse effects and the retention of different types of sealants.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. Review authors scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group and split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a sealant with no sealant, or different types of sealants, for the prevention of caries in primary molars, with no restriction on follow-up duration. We included studies in which co-interventions such as oral health preventive measures, oral health education or tooth brushing demonstrations were used, provided that the same adjunct was used with the intervention and comparator. We excluded studies with complex interventions for the prevention of dental caries in primary teeth such as preventive resin restorations, or studies that used sealants in cavitated carious lesions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We presented outcomes for the development of new carious lesions on occlusal surfaces of primary molars as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where studies were similar in clinical and methodological characteristics, we planned to pool effect estimates using a random-effects model where appropriate. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies that randomised 1120 children who ranged in age from 18 months to eight years at the start of the study. One study compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with no sealant (139 tooth pairs in 90 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with no sealant (619 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with resin-based sealant (278 tooth pairs in 200 children); two studies compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with resin-based sealant (113 tooth pairs in 69 children); one study compared composite with fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant (40 tooth pairs in 40 children); and one study compared autopolymerised sealant with light polymerised sealant (52 tooth pairs in 52 children).\nThree studies evaluated the effects of sealants versus no sealant and provided data for our primary outcome. Due to differences in study design such as age of participants and duration of follow-up, we elected not to pool the data. At 24 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in the development of new caries lesions for the fluoride-releasing sealants or no treatment groups (Becker Balagtas odds ratio (BB OR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.42; 1 study, 85 children, 255 tooth surfaces). For glass ionomer-based sealants, the evidence was equivocal; one study found insufficient evidence of a difference at follow-up between 12 and 30 months (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49; 449 children), while another with 12-month follow-up found a large, beneficial effect of sealants (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.15; 107 children). We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low, downgrading two levels in total for study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency.\nWe included six trials randomising 411 children that directly compared different sealant materials, four of which (221 children) provided data for our primary outcome. Differences in age of the participants and duration of follow-up precluded pooling of the data. The incidence of development of new caries lesions was typically low across the different sealant types evaluated. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low or very low for the outcome of caries incidence.\nOnly one study assessed and reported adverse events, the nature of which was gag reflex while placing the sealant material.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe certainty of the evidence for the comparisons and outcomes in this review was low or very low, reflecting the fragility and uncertainty of the evidence base. The volume of evidence for this review was limited, which typically included small studies where the number of events was low. The majority of studies in this review were of split-mouth design, an efficient study design for this research question; however, there were often shortcomings in the analysis and reporting of results that made synthesising the evidence difficult. An important omission from the included studies was the reporting of adverse events. Given the importance of prevention for maintaining good oral health, there exists an important evidence gap pertaining to the caries-preventive effect and retention of sealants in the primary dentition, which should be addressed through robust RCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The review includes studies available from a search of the literature up to 11 February 2021."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6309
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVitrectomy surgery is one of the commonest ophthalmic procedures performed across the world. It may be performed using general or local anaesthesia encompassing regional or topical anaesthesia depending on a number of factors, including patient suitability, and patient, surgeon or anaesthetist preference. There have so far been no evidence-based recommendations on the best form of anaesthesia for this intervention. There is no clear collated evidence base as to the best type of anaesthesia to reduce harm, and provide best surgical conditions and optimal outcome for patients.\nObjectives\nTo compare local with general anaesthesia for adults undergoing pars plana vitrectomy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library and the reference lists of updated studies on the 25th of July 2016; MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1972 to July 2016) and Embase via Ovid SP (1972 to July 2016). In addition we searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in July 2016. We searched the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) up to July 2016 for information about other relevant studies.\nWe also searched appropriate databases for ongoing reviews. We did not apply any language restriction. We assessed the search as up-to-date on the 25th of July 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving comparison of different modalities of local anaesthesia with general anaesthesia for pars plana vitrectomy. We considered the following different modalities of local anaesthesia: sub-Tenon's anaesthesia, retrobulbar anaesthesia, topical anaesthesia, peribulbar anaesthesia. We planned to include cluster-randomized controlled trials. We excluded quasi-RCT trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors conducted independent searches and assessed identified studies for inclusion according to the prespecified selection criteria. Two review authors assessed trial quality and planned to extract the data.\nMain results\nWe found no eligible studies that met our inclusion criteria and were therefore unable to perform a meta-analysis or conduct a methodological quality assessment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review failed to locate relevant clinical evidence to support or refute a pars plana vitrectomy performed with various modalities of local anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia. Good-quality clinical trials are needed to define the role of local versus general anaesthesia for pars plana vitrectomy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the databases until July 2016 but found no suitable studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6310
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTheoretically, autologous serum eye drops (AS) offer a potential advantage over traditional therapies on the assumption that AS not only serve as a lacrimal substitute to provide lubrication but contain other biochemical components that allow them to mimic natural tears more closely. Application of AS has gained popularity as second-line therapy for patients with dry eye. Published studies on this subject indicate that autologous serum could be an effective treatment for dry eye.\nObjectives\nWe conducted this review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AS given alone or in combination with artificial tears as compared with artificial tears alone, saline, placebo, or no treatment for adults with dry eye.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2016), Embase (January 1980 to July 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to July 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We also searched the Science Citation Index Expanded database (December 2016) and reference lists of included studies. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 5 July 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared AS versus artificial tears for treatment of adults with dry eye.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports of potentially eligible trials. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias and characteristics of included trials. We contacted investigators to ask for missing data. For both primary and secondary outcomes, we reported mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. We did not perform meta-analysis owing to differences in outcome assessments across trials.\nMain results\nWe identified five eligible RCTs (92 participants) that compared AS versus artificial tears or saline in individuals with dry eye of various origins (Sjögren's syndrome-related dry eye, non-Sjögren's syndrome dry eye, and postoperative dry eye induced by laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)). We assessed the certainty of evidence as low or very low because of lack of reporting of quantitative data for most outcomes and unclear or high risk of bias among trials. We judged most risk of bias domains to have unclear risk in two trials owing to insufficient reporting of trial characteristics, and we considered one trial to have high risk of bias for most domains. We judged the remaining two trials to have low risk of bias; however, these trials used a cross-over design and did not report data in a way that could be used to compare outcomes between treatment groups appropriately. Incomplete outcome reporting and heterogeneity among outcomes and follow-up periods prevented inclusion of these trials in a summary meta-analysis.\nThree trials compared AS with artificial tears; however, only one trial reported quantitative data for analysis. Low-certainty evidence from one trial suggested that AS might provide some improvement in participant-reported symptoms compared with artificial tears after two weeks of treatment; the mean difference in mean change in symptom score measured on a visual analogue scale (range 0 to 100, with higher scores representing worse symptoms) was -12.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -20.16 to -3.84; 20 participants). This same trial found mixed results with respect to ocular surface outcomes; the mean difference in mean change in scores between AS and artificial tears was -0.9 (95% CI -1.47 to -0.33; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) for fluorescein staining and -2.2 (95% CI -2.73 to -1.67; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) for Rose Bengal staining. Both staining scales range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating worse results. The mean change in tear film break-up time was 2.00 seconds longer (95% CI 0.99 to 3.01; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the AS group than in the artificial tears group. Investigators reported no clinically meaningful differences in Schirmer’s test scores between groups (mean difference -0.40 mm, 95% CI -2.91 to 2.11; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of these three trials reported tear hyperosmolarity and adverse events.\nTwo trials compared AS versus saline; however, only one trial reported quantitative data for analysis of only one outcome (Rose Bengal staining). Trial investigators of the two studies reported no differences in symptom scores, fluorescein staining scores, tear film break-up times, or Schirmer's test scores between groups at two to four weeks' follow-up. Very low-certainty evidence from one trial suggested that AS might provide some improvement in Rose Bengal staining scores compared with saline after four weeks of treatment; the mean difference in Rose Bengal staining score (range from 0 to 9, with higher scores showing worse results) was -0.60 (95% CI -1.11 to -0.09; 35 participants). Neither trial reported tear hyperosmolarity outcomes. One trial reported adverse events; two of 12 participants had signs of conjunctivitis with negative culture that did resolve.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, investigators reported inconsistency in possible benefits of AS for improving participant-reported symptoms and other objective clinical measures. There might be some benefit in symptoms with AS compared with artificial tears in the short-term, but we found no evidence of an effect after two weeks of treatment. Well-planned, large, high-quality RCTs are warranted to examine participants with dry eye of different severities by using standardized questionnaires to measure participant-reported outcomes, as well as objective clinical tests and objective biomarkers to assess the benefit of AS therapy for dry eye.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cochrane review authors searched for studies that had been published up to July 5, 2016."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6311
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBeta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); a review of the evidence is required to determine whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with HFpEF.\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one clinical trial register on 14 May 2020 to identify eligible studies, with no language or date restrictions. We checked references from trial reports and review articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design, enrolling adults with HFpEF, defined by LVEF greater than 40%.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 41 randomised controlled trials (231 reports), totalling 23,492 participants across all comparisons. The risk of bias was frequently unclear and only five studies had a low risk of bias in all domains.\nBeta-blockers (BBs)\nWe included 10 studies (3087 participants) investigating BBs. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 30 years to 81 years.\nA possible reduction in cardiovascular mortality was observed (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; three studies), however, the certainty of evidence was low. There may be little to no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.00; 1105 participants; four studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, and quality of life remain uncertain.\nMineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs)\nWe included 13 studies (4459 participants) investigating MRA. Eight studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 54.5 to 80 years.\nPooled analysis indicated that MRA treatment probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB = 41; 3714 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MRA treatment probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; 4207 participants; five studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; 4070 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). MRA treatment may have little or no effect on quality of life measures (mean difference (MD) 0.84, 95% CI -2.30 to 3.98; 511 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). MRA treatment was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 11; 4291 participants; six studies; high-certainty evidence).\nAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)\nWe included eight studies (2061 participants) investigating ACEIs. Three studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 70 to 82 years.\nPooled analyses with moderate-certainty evidence suggest that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.42; 945 participants; two studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45; 1187 participants; five studies) and heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; 1019 participants; three studies), and may result in little or no effect on the quality of life (MD -0.09, 95% CI -3.66 to 3.48; 154 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on hyperkalaemia remain uncertain.\nAngiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)\nEight studies (8755 participants) investigating ARBs were included. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in three the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 61 to 75 years.\nPooled analyses with high certainty of evidence suggest that ARB treatment has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% 0.90 to 1.14; 7254 participants; three studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; 7964 participants; four studies), heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.02; 7254 participants; three studies), and quality of life (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.86 to 1.67; 3117 participants; three studies). ARB was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; two studies; high-certainty evidence).\nAngiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs)\nThree studies (7702 participants) investigating ARNIs were included. Two studies used ARBs as the comparator and one used standardised medical therapy, based on participants' established treatments at enrolment. The mean age of participants ranged from 71 to 73 years.\nResults suggest that ARNIs may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 4796 participants; one study; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 7663 participants; three studies; high-certainty evidence), or quality of life (high-certainty evidence). However, ARNI treatment may result in a slight reduction in heart failure hospitalisation, compared to usual care (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7362 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). ARNI treatment was associated with a reduced risk of hyperkalaemia compared with valsartan (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01; 5054 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence that MRA and ARNI treatment in HFpEF probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation but probably has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality and quality of life. BB treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality, however, further trials are needed. The current evidence for BBs, ACEIs, and ARBs is limited and does not support their use in HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication. Although MRAs and ARNIs are probably effective at reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalisation, the treatment effect sizes are modest. There is a need for improved approaches to patient stratification to identify the subgroup of patients who are most likely to benefit from MRAs and ARNIs, as well as for an improved understanding of disease biology, and for new therapeutic approaches.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results and conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 10 studies with 3087 randomised participants for BBs, 13 studies with 4459 randomised participants for MRAs, eight studies with 2061 randomised participants for ACEIs, eight studies with 8755 randomised participants for ARBs and three studies with 7702 randomised participants for ARNIs. We combined the evidence in a pooled analysis for each drug class and for each of the outcomes assessed. Not all included studies are part of each analysis.\nWe found that BBs may improve cardiovascular mortality. However, the certainty of evidence was low due to small trials and uncertainty about the methods used. For MRAs, the results suggest a reduction in heart failure hospitalisation but little or no effect on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality; however, the certainty of evidence was only moderate. For ACEIs, treatment probably has little or no effect on the outcomes of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalisation; however, the certainty of evidence was only moderate. We found high certainty of evidence for ARB treatment, with the results suggesting little or no effect. We found that ARNI treatment has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (high-certainty evidence), or quality of life (high-certainty evidence). ARB treatment may reduce slightly heart failure hospitalisations (moderate-certainty evidence). Treatment with MRAs and ARBs was found to increase the risk of high potassium in the blood.\nIn conclusion, treatment with MRAs, and possibly ARNIs, was found to result in a slight reduction in the risk of hospitalisation due to heart failure. There was some evidence of a possible beneficial effect of BB on mortality due to cardiovascular disease. Treatment with ACEI probably has no beneficial effect in people with HFpEF, however, this remains uncertain due to a lack of evidence from clinical trials. For ARBs, the evidence suggested that treatment is of little or no benefit in people with HFpEF."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6312
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary hypertension (PH) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality, which leads to a substantial loss of exercise capacity. PH ultimately leads to right ventricular overload and subsequent heart failure and early death. Although early detection and treatment of PH are recommended, due to the limited responsiveness to therapy at late disease stages, many patients are diagnosed at a later stage of the disease because symptoms and signs of PH are nonspecific at earlier stages. While direct pressure measurement with right-heart catheterisation is the clinical reference standard for PH, it is not routinely used due to its invasiveness and complications. Trans-thoracic Doppler echocardiography is less invasive, less expensive, and widely available compared to right-heart catheterisation; it is therefore recommended that echocardiography be used as an initial diagnosis method in guidelines. However, several studies have questioned the accuracy of noninvasively measured pulmonary artery pressure. There is substantial uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography for the diagnosis of PH.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of trans-thoracic Doppler echocardiography for detecting PH.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to August 2021, reference lists of articles, and contacted study authors. We applied no restrictions on language or type of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of trans-thoracic Doppler echocardiography for detecting PH, where right-heart catheterisation was the reference standard. We excluded diagnostic case-control studies (two-gate design), studies where right-heart catheterisation was not the reference standard, and those in which the reference standard threshold differed from 25 mmHg. We also excluded studies that did not provide sufficient diagnostic test accuracy data (true-positive [TP], false-positive [FP], true-negative [TN], and false-negative [FN] values, based on the reference standard). We included studies that provided data from which we could extract TP, FP, TN, and FN values, based on the reference standard. Two authors independently screened and assessed the eligibility based on the titles and abstracts of records identified by the search. After the title and abstract screening, the full-text reports of all potentially eligible studies were obtained, and two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the full-text reports.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from each of the included studies. We contacted the authors of the included studies to obtain missing data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We estimated a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve by fitting a hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) non-linear mixed model. We explored sources of heterogeneity regarding types of PH, methods to estimate the right atrial pressure, and threshold of index test to diagnose PH. All analyses were performed using the Review Manager 5, SAS and STATA statistical software.\nMain results\nWe included 17 studies (comprising 3656 adult patients) assessing the diagnostic accuracy of Doppler trans-thoracic echocardiography for the diagnosis of PH. The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of patient distribution of age, sex, WHO classification, setting, country, positivity threshold, and year of publication. The prevalence of PH reported in the included studies varied widely (from 6% to 88%). The threshold of index test for PH diagnosis varied widely (from 30 mmHg to 47 mmHg) and was not always prespecified. No study was assigned low risk of bias or low concern in each QUADAS-2 domain assessed. Poor reporting, especially in the index test and reference standard domains, hampered conclusive judgement about the risk of bias. There was little consistency in the thresholds used in the included studies; therefore, common thresholds contained very sparse data, which prevented us from calculating summary points of accuracy estimates. With a fixed specificity of 86% (the median specificity), the estimated sensitivity derived from the median value of specificity using HSROC model was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78% to 96%). Using a prevalence of PH of 68%, which was the median among the included studies conducted mainly in tertiary hospitals, diagnosing a cohort of 1000 adult patients under suspicion of PH would result in 88 patients being undiagnosed with PH (false negatives) and 275 patients would avoid unnecessary referral for a right-heart catheterisation (true negatives). In addition, 592 of 1000 patients would receive an appropriate and timely referral for a right-heart catheterisation (true positives), while 45 patients would be wrongly considered to have PH (false positives). Conversely, when we assumed low prevalence of PH (10%), as in the case of preoperative examinations for liver transplantation, the number of false negatives and false positives would be 13 and 126, respectively.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur evidence assessment of echocardiography for the diagnosis of PH in adult patients revealed several limitations. We were unable to determine the average sensitivity and specificity at any particular index test threshold and to explain the observed variability in results. The high heterogeneity of the collected data and the poor methodological quality would constrain the implementation of this result into clinical practice. Further studies relative to the accuracy of Doppler trans-thoracic echocardiography for the diagnosis of PH in adults, that apply a rigorous methodology for conducting diagnostic test accuracy studies, are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who do the results of this review apply to?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "These results apply to adults who are suspected of having pulmonary hypertension. However, the diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography varied considerably among studies and it is yet unclear what causes this diversity of test accuracy. Of note, the results are from studies conducted in relatively high prevalence settings. Therefore, care should be taken when applying this result to individual situations."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6313
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTracheal intubation is a common procedure performed to secure the airway in adults undergoing surgery or those who are critically ill. Intubation is sometimes associated with difficulties and complications that may result in patient harm. While it is traditionally achieved by performing direct laryngoscopy, the past three decades have seen the advent of rigid indirect videolaryngoscopes (VLs). A mounting body of evidence comparing the two approaches to tracheal intubation has been acquired over this period of time. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether use of different designs of VLs in adults requiring tracheal intubation reduces the failure rate compared with direct laryngoscopy, and assess the benefits and risks of these devices in selected population groups, users and settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 27 February 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and conducted forward and backward citation searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with adults undergoing laryngoscopy performed with either a VL or a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (DL) in any clinical setting. We included parallel and cross-over study designs.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for the following outcomes: failed intubation, hypoxaemia, successful first attempt at tracheal intubation, oesophageal intubation, dental trauma, Cormack-Lehane grade, and time for tracheal intubation.\nMain results\nWe included 222 studies (219 RCTs, three quasi-RCTs) with 26,149 participants undergoing tracheal intubation. Most studies recruited adults undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation. Twenty-one studies recruited participants with a known or predicted difficult airway, and an additional 25 studies simulated a difficult airway. Twenty-one studies were conducted outside the operating theatre environment; of these, six were in the prehospital setting, seven in the emergency department and eight in the intensive care unit.\nWe report here the findings of the three main comparisons according to videolaryngoscopy device type.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the outcomes for imprecision, study limitations (e.g. high or unclear risks of bias), inconsistency when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity and publication bias.\nMacintosh-style videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (61 studies, 9883 participants)\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that a Macintosh-style VL probably reduces rates of failed intubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.65; 41 studies, 4615 participants) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99; 16 studies, 2127 participants). These devices may also increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; 42 studies, 7311 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably improve glottic view when assessed as Cormack-Lehane grade 3 and 4 (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.48; 38 studies, 4368 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little or no clear difference in rates of oesophageal intubation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.21; 14 studies, 2404 participants) but this finding was supported by low-certainty evidence. We were unsure of the findings for dental trauma because the certainty of this evidence was very low (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.89; 18 studies, 2297 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 96%).\nHyperangulated videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (96 studies, 11,438 participants)\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that hyperangulated VLs probably reduce rates of failed intubation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 63 studies, 7146 participants) and oesophageal intubation (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.81; 14 studies, 1968 participants). In subgroup analysis, we noted that hyperangulated VLs were more likely to reduce failed intubation when used on known or predicted difficult airways (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.48; P = 0.03 for subgroup differences; 15 studies, 1520 participants). We also found that these devices may increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05; 66 studies, 8086 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the glottic view is probably also improved (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.24; 54 studies, 6058 participants; data for Cormack-Lehane grade 3/4 views; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we found low-certainty evidence of little or no clear difference in rates of hypoxaemia (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.11; 15 studies, 1691 participants), and the findings for dental trauma were unclear because the certainty of this evidence was very low (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.59; 30 studies, 3497 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99%).\nChannelled videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (73 studies, 7165 participants)\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that channelled VLs probably reduce rates of failed intubation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.61; 53 studies, 5367 participants) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.50; 15 studies, 1966 participants). They may also increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 47 studies, 5210 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and probably improve glottic view (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.21; 40 studies, 3955 participants; data for Cormack-Lehane grade 3/4 views; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little or no clear difference in rates of oesophageal intubation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.75; 16 studies, 1756 participants) but this was supported by low-certainty evidence. We were unsure of the findings for dental trauma because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.12; 29 studies, 2375 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 98%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nVLs of all designs likely reduce rates of failed intubation and result in higher rates of successful intubation on the first attempt with improved glottic views. Macintosh-style and channelled VLs likely reduce rates of hypoxaemic events, while hyperangulated VLs probably reduce rates of oesophageal intubation. We conclude that videolaryngoscopy likely provides a safer risk profile compared to direct laryngoscopy for all adults undergoing tracheal intubation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We were moderately confident that videolaryngoscopes reduce failed intubations. We had moderate to very low confidence in our other findings. It was not possible for researchers to conceal what type of laryngoscope the medical staff used and this might have affected how they carried out intubations. The studies included different types of people, and some findings included the possibility of benefits or harms for both types of laryngoscope."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6314
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and disabling disorder. Evidence that PTSD is characterised by specific psychobiological dysfunctions has contributed to a growing interest in the use of medication in its treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of medication for reducing PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 11, November 2020); MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1974-), PsycINFO (1967-) and PTSDPubs (all available years) either directly or via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched international trial registers. The date of the latest search was 13 November 2020.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy for adults with PTSD.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors (TW, JI, and NP) independently assessed RCTs for inclusion in the review, collated trial data, and assessed trial quality. We contacted investigators to obtain missing data. We stratified summary statistics by medication class, and by medication agent for all medications. We calculated dichotomous and continuous measures using a random-effects model, and assessed heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe include 66 RCTs in the review (range: 13 days to 28 weeks; 7442 participants; age range 18 to 85 years) and 54 in the meta-analysis.\nFor the primary outcome of treatment response, we found evidence of beneficial effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.74; 8 studies, 1078 participants), which improved PTSD symptoms in 58% of SSRI participants compared with 35% of placebo participants, based on moderate-certainty evidence.\nFor this outcome we also found evidence of beneficial effect for the noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) mirtazapine: (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.94; 1 study, 26 participants) in 65% of people on mirtazapine compared with 22% of placebo participants, and for the tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) amitriptyline (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.96; 1 study, 40 participants) in 50% of amitriptyline participants compared with 17% of placebo participants, which improved PTSD symptoms. These outcomes are based on low-certainty evidence. There was however no evidence of beneficial effect for the number of participants who improved with the antipsychotics (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.67; 2 studies, 43 participants) compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence.\nFor the outcome of treatment withdrawal, we found evidence of a harm for the individual SSRI agents compared with placebo (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.87; 14 studies, 2399 participants). Withdrawals were also higher for the separate SSRI paroxetine group compared to the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.29; 5 studies, 1101 participants). Nonetheless, the absolute proportion of individuals dropping out from treatment due to adverse events in the SSRI groups was low (9%), based on moderate-certainty evidence. For the rest of the medications compared to placebo, we did not find evidence of harm for individuals dropping out from treatment due to adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings of this review support the conclusion that SSRIs improve PTSD symptoms; they are first-line agents for the pharmacotherapy of PTSD, based on moderate-certainty evidence. The NaSSA mirtazapine and the TCA amitriptyline may also improve PTSD symptoms, but this is based on low-certainty evidence. In addition, we found no evidence of benefit for the number of participants who improved following treatment with the antipsychotic group compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. There remain important gaps in the evidence base, and a continued need for more effective agents in the management of PTSD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does the evidence from the review tell us?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There was evidence of a beneficial effect that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) improve PTSD symptoms compared to placebo, based on moderate-certainty evidence. There was also evidence of a benefit for the noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) mirtazapine and the tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) amitriptyline, in improving PTSD symptoms, based on low-certainty evidence. We also found no evidence of benefit for the number of participants who improved following treatment with the antipsychotic group compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. For the remaining medication classes, we did not observe evidence of a benefit for improving PTSD symptoms.\nThere was evidence of a harm that more people taking individual SSRI agents dropped out due to side effects than did those taking placebo, but absolute withdrawal rates were low for the SSRI groups."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6315
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe choice of antibiotic, and the use of single or combined therapy are controversial areas in the treatment of respiratory infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis (CF). Advantages of combination therapy include wider range of modes of action, possible synergy and reduction of resistant organisms; advantages of monotherapy include lower cost, ease of administration and reduction of drug-related toxicity. Current evidence does not provide a clear answer and the use of intravenous antibiotic therapy in CF requires further evaluation. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of single compared to combination intravenous anti-pseudomonal antibiotic therapy for treating people with CF.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.\nMost recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 07 October 2020.\nWe also searched online trials registries on 16 November 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a single intravenous anti-pseudomonal antibiotic with a combination of that antibiotic plus a second anti-pseudomonal antibiotic in people with CF.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the data using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 59 trials, of which we included eight trials (356 participants) comparing a single anti-pseudomonal agent to a combination of the same antibiotic and one other. There was a wide variation in the individual antibiotics used in each trial. In total, the trials included seven comparisons of a beta-lactam antibiotic (penicillin-related or third generation cephalosporin) with a beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination and three comparisons of an aminoglycoside with a beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination.\nThere was considerable heterogeneity amongst these trials, leading to difficulties in performing the review and interpreting the results. These results should be interpreted cautiously. Six of the included trials were published between 1977 and 1988; these were single-centre trials with flaws in the randomisation process and small sample size. Overall, the methodological quality was poor and the certainty of the evidence ranged from low to moderate.\nThe review did not find any differences between monotherapy and combination therapy in either the short term or in the long term for the outcomes of different lung function measures, bacteriological outcome measures, need for additional treatment, adverse effects, quality of life or symptom scores.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review are inconclusive. The review raises important methodological issues. There is a need for an RCT which needs to be well-designed in terms of adequate randomisation allocation, blinding, power and long-term follow-up. Results need to be standardised to a consistent method of reporting, in order to validate the pooling of results from multiple trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included eight trials with a total of 356 people. Six of these were published before 1988, were each based in a single centre and used a range of different drugs. These factors made it difficult to combine and analyse the results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6316
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in an unselected population remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update, and assesses the evidence in non-cardiac surgery only.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. If studies included surgery with different types of anaesthesia, we included them if 70% participants, or at least 100 participants, received general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 83 RCTs with 14,967 participants; we found no quasi-randomized studies. All participants were undergoing non-cardiac surgery, and types of surgery ranged from low to high risk. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, esmolol, landiolol, nadolol, atenolol, labetalol, oxprenolol, and pindolol. In nine studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in most studies, it was intraoperatively, but in 18 studies it was before surgery, in six postoperatively, one multi-arm study included groups of different timings, and one study did not report timing of drug administration. Overall, we found that more than half of the studies did not sufficiently report methods used for randomization. All studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. Only two studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. In six studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period.\nThe evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days was uncertain; based on the risk of death in the control group of 25 per 1000, the effect with beta-blockers was between two fewer and 13 more per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.54; 16 studies, 11,446 participants; low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction by 13 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; 12 studies, 10,520 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 6 studies, 9460 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.47; 5 studies, 476 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation or flutter by 26 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 9 studies, 9080 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia by 55 more incidences per 1000 (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.56; 49 studies, 12,239 participants; low-certainty evidence), and hypotension by 44 more per 1000 (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.51; 49 studies, 12,304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe downgraded the certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations; some studies had high risks of bias, and the effects were sometimes altered when we excluded studies with a standard care control group (including only placebo-controlled trials showed an increase in early mortality and cerebrovascular events with beta-blockers). We also downgraded for inconsistency; one large, well-conducted, international study found a reduction in myocardial infarction, and an increase in cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, when beta-blockers were used, but other studies showed no evidence of a difference. We could not explain the reason for the inconsistency in the evidence for ventricular arrhythmias, and we also downgraded this outcome for imprecision because we found few studies with few participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for early all-cause mortality with perioperative beta-blockers was uncertain. We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events or ventricular arrhythmias, and the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was low and very low. We found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarctions. However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia (low-certainty evidence) and probably increase hypotension (moderate-certainty evidence). Further evidence from large placebo-controlled trials is likely to increase the certainty of these findings, and we recommend the assessment of impact on quality of life. We found 18 studies awaiting classification; inclusion of these studies in future updates may also increase the certainty of the evidence.\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": "Although beta-blockers may make little or no difference to the number of people who die within 30 days, have a stroke, or have ventricular arrhythmias, they may reduce atrial fibrillation and heart attacks. Taking beta-blockers may increase the number of people with a very low heart rate or very low blood pressure around the time of surgery. Further evidence from large, placebo-controlled trials is likely to increase the certainty of these findings, and we recommend the assessment of impact on quality of life."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6317
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEssential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The treatment is primarily based on pharmacological agents. Although primidone and propranolol are well established treatments in clinical practice, they can be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients, and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it may be worthwhile evaluating the treatment alternatives for ET. Zonisamide has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for the treatment of ET but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect on functional abilities and the safety profile of zonisamide in adults with essential tremor (ET).\nSearch methods\nWe carried out a systematic search, without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to January 2017. We searched BIOSIS Citation Index (2000 to January 2017) for conference proceedings. We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of zonisamide versus placebo or any other treatment. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence.We used inverse variance methods for continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared differences between treatment groups as mean differences. We combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and obtained risk differences to compare treatment groups. We used Review Manager 5 software for data management and analysis.\nMain results\nWe only considered one study eligible for this review (20 participants). Assessments of risk of bias for most domains were unclear or low. Adverse events were only reported in participants from the zonisamide group, making it possible that they were aware of treatment group assignment. We are uncertain as to the effects of zonisamide on motor tasks (mean difference (MD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.51 to 1.51, very low-quality evidence) and functional disabilities (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Three participants in the zonisamide group (30%) and two participants in the placebo group (20%) discontinued the treatment and withdrew from the study for any reason (very low-quality evidence), however the increased risk of withdrawal in the zonisamide group was statistically non-significant (risk difference (RD) 0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.48). Six participants in the zonisamide group (60%) and none of the participants in the placebo group (0%) developed adverse events (AEs), with a RD of 0.60 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.92; very low quality evidence). The most common AEs, experienced with zonisamide treatment, were headache, nausea, fatigue, sleepiness, and diarrhoea. Quality of life was not assessed in the study included.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on currently available data, there is insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of zonisamide treatment for ET.\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": "Essential tremor is the most common movement disorder. Although benign, in term of its effect on life expectancy, it is typically progressive and potentially disabling. The treatment is primarily based on pharmacological agents (propranolol and primidone as first-line therapy) but these are ineffective in 25% to 55% of participants. Zonisamide has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for the treatment of essential tremor."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6318
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVedolizumab blocks inflammatory activity within the gastrointestinal tract. Systematic reviews have demonstrated the efficacy of vedolizumab in ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease in general. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarises the current evidence of vedolizumab in the induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of vedolizumab versus placebo for the induction and maintenance of remission in people with Crohn's disease.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing vedolizumab to placebo for the induction or maintenance of remission in people with Crohn's disease.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. For induction studies, the primary outcome was 1. clinical remission, and secondary outcomes were rates of 2. clinical response, 3. adverse events, 4. serious adverse events, 5. surgery, 6. endoscopic remission and 7. endoscopic response. For maintenance studies, the primary outcome was 1. maintenance of clinical remission, and secondary outcomes were rates of 2. adverse events, 3. serious adverse events, 4. surgery, 5. endoscopic remission and 6. endoscopic response. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe analysed induction (4 trials, 1126 participants) and maintenance (3 trials, 894 participants) studies representing people across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia separately. One maintenance trial administered subcutaneous vedolizumab whilst the other studies used the intravenous form. The mean age ranged between 32.6 and 38.6 years.\nVedolizumab was superior to placebo for the induction of clinical remission (71 more per 1000 with clinical remission with vedolizumab; risk ratio (RR) 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 2.17; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence) and superior to placebo for inducing clinical response (105 more per 1000 with clinical response with vedolizumab; RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.71; NNTB 8; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). For the induction phase, vedolizumab may be equivalent to placebo for the development of serious adverse events (9 fewer serious adverse events per 1000 with vedolizumab; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.33; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably equivalent to placebo for overall adverse events (6 fewer adverse events per 1000 with vedolizumab; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nVedolizumab was superior to placebo for the maintenance of clinical remission (141 more per 1000 with maintenance of clinical remission with vedolizumab; RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.87; NNTB 7; 3 studies; high-certainty evidence). During the maintenance phase, vedolizumab may be equivalent to placebo for the development of serious adverse events (3 fewer serious adverse events per 1000 with vedolizumab; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.39; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably equivalent to placebo for the development of overall adverse events (0 difference in adverse events per 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigh-certainty data across four induction and three maintenance trials demonstrate that vedolizumab is superior to placebo in the induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Overall adverse events are probably similar and serious adverse events may be similar between vedolizumab and placebo during both induction and maintenance phases of treatment. Head-to-head research comparing the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab to other biological therapies is required.\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 four studies including 1126 participants that investigated vedolizumab's effect in inducing remission (where the disease is no longer active), and three studies including 894 participants that investigated its effect in maintaining remission.\nCompared to placebo, vedolizumab was more effective at inducing remission (4 studies in 1126 participants) and maintaining remission (3 studies in 894 participants) in Crohn's disease. Vedolizumab is more effective than placebo for inducing a clinical response (i.e. disease entering remission; 4 studies in 1126 participants). It is probably as likely as placebo to cause overall side effects and as likely as placebo to cause serious side effects during both induction (4 studies in 1126 participants) or maintenance treatment (3 studies in 894 participants)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6319
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2009. Millions of workers worldwide are exposed to noise levels that increase their risk of hearing disorders. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL; PubMed; Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; and OSH UPDATE to 3 October 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time-series (ITS) of non-clinical interventions under field conditions among workers to prevent or reduce noise exposure and hearing loss. We also collected uncontrolled case studies of engineering controls about the effect on noise exposure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We categorised interventions as engineering controls, administrative controls, personal hearing protection devices, and hearing surveillance.\nMain results\nWe included 29 studies. One study evaluated legislation to reduce noise exposure in a 12-year time-series analysis but there were no controlled studies on engineering controls for noise exposure. Eleven studies with 3725 participants evaluated effects of personal hearing protection devices and 17 studies with 84,028 participants evaluated effects of hearing loss prevention programmes (HLPPs).\nEffects on noise exposure\nEngineering interventions following legislation\nOne ITS study found that new legislation in the mining industry reduced the median personal noise exposure dose in underground coal mining by 27.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI) −36.1 to −19.3 percentage points) immediately after the implementation of stricter legislation. This roughly translates to a 4.5 dB(A) decrease in noise level. The intervention was associated with a favourable but statistically non-significant downward trend in time of the noise dose of −2.1 percentage points per year (95% CI −4.9 to 0.7, 4 year follow-up, very low-quality evidence).\nEngineering intervention case studies\nWe found 12 studies that described 107 uncontrolled case studies of immediate reductions in noise levels of machinery ranging from 11.1 to 19.7 dB(A) as a result of purchasing new equipment, segregating noise sources or installing panels or curtains around sources. However, the studies lacked long-term follow-up and dose measurements of workers, and we did not use these studies for our conclusions.\nHearing protection devices\nIn general hearing protection devices reduced noise exposure on average by about 20 dB(A) in one RCT and three CBAs (57 participants, low-quality evidence). Two RCTs showed that, with instructions for insertion, the attenuation of noise by earplugs was 8.59 dB better (95% CI 6.92 dB to 10.25 dB) compared to no instruction (2 RCTs, 140 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nAdministrative controls: information and noise exposure feedback\nOn-site training sessions did not have an effect on personal noise-exposure levels compared to information only in one cluster-RCT after four months' follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.14 dB; 95% CI −2.66 to 2.38). Another arm of the same study found that personal noise exposure information had no effect on noise levels (MD 0.30 dB(A), 95% CI −2.31 to 2.91) compared to no such information (176 participants, low-quality evidence).\nEffects on hearing loss\nHearing protection devices\nIn two studies the authors compared the effect of different devices on temporary threshold shifts at short-term follow-up but reported insufficient data for analysis. In two CBA studies the authors found no difference in hearing loss from noise exposure above 89 dB(A) between muffs and earplugs at long-term follow-up (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03 ), very low-quality evidence). Authors of another CBA study found that wearing hearing protection more often resulted in less hearing loss at very long-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence).\nCombination of interventions: hearing loss prevention programmes\nOne cluster-RCT found no difference in hearing loss at three- or 16-year follow-up between an intensive HLPP for agricultural students and audiometry only. One CBA study found no reduction of the rate of hearing loss (MD −0.82 dB per year (95% CI −1.86 to 0.22) for a HLPP that provided regular personal noise exposure information compared to a programme without this information.\nThere was very-low-quality evidence in four very long-term studies, that better use of hearing protection devices as part of a HLPP decreased the risk of hearing loss compared to less well used hearing protection in HLPPs (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.69). Other aspects of the HLPP such as training and education of workers or engineering controls did not show a similar effect.\nIn three long-term CBA studies, workers in a HLPP had a statistically non-significant 1.8 dB (95% CI −0.6 to 4.2) greater hearing loss at 4 kHz than non-exposed workers and the confidence interval includes the 4.2 dB which is the level of hearing loss resulting from 5 years of exposure to 85 dB(A). In addition, of three other CBA studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis, two showed an increased risk of hearing loss in spite of the protection of a HLPP compared to non-exposed workers and one CBA did not.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-quality evidence that implementation of stricter legislation can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Controlled studies of other engineering control interventions in the field have not been conducted. There is moderate-quality evidence that training of proper insertion of earplugs significantly reduces noise exposure at short-term follow-up but long-term follow-up is still needed.\nThere is very low-quality evidence that the better use of hearing protection devices as part of HLPPs reduces the risk of hearing loss, whereas for other programme components of HLPPs we did not find such an effect. The absence of conclusive evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness. Rather, it means that further research is very likely to have an important impact.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Effects on noise exposure\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Engineering solutions\nWe found one study that showed that noise levels decreased by about 5 decibels (dB) after the implementation of stricter legislation in the mining industry. Even though many case studies show that technical improvements can reduce noise levels at workplaces by as much as 20 dB, there were no controlled studies outside the laboratory that would show this with more confidence.\nHearing protection\nIn eight studies with 358 workers, hearing protection reduced noise exposure of workers by about 20 dB(A). However, for earplugs there was moderate-quality evidence in two randomised studies that if workers lack proper instructions in the use of earplugs, the attenuation offered is reduced by on average 9 dB.\nFeedback on noise exposure\nProviding feedback on noise exposure did not change noise levels in the construction industry in one study."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6320
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLipid-lowering drugs are widely underused, despite strong evidence indicating they improve cardiovascular end points. Poor patient adherence to a medication regimen can affect the success of lipid-lowering treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions aimed at improving adherence to lipid-lowering drugs, focusing on measures of adherence and clinical outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to 3 February 2016, and clinical trials registers (ANZCTR and ClinicalTrials.gov) up to 27 July 2016. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe evaluated randomised controlled trials of adherence-enhancing interventions for lipid-lowering medication in adults in an ambulatory setting with a variety of measurable outcomes, such as adherence to treatment and changes to serum lipid levels. Two teams of review authors independently selected the studies.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors extracted and assessed data, following criteria outlined by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADEPro.\nMain results\nFor this updated review, we added 24 new studies meeting the eligibility criteria to the 11 studies from prior updates. We have therefore included 35 studies, randomising 925,171 participants. Seven studies including 11,204 individuals compared adherence rates of those in an intensification of a patient care intervention (e.g. electronic reminders, pharmacist-led interventions, healthcare professional education of patients) versus usual care over the short term (six months or less), and were pooled in a meta-analysis. Participants in the intervention group had better adherence than those receiving usual care (odds ratio (OR) 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 2.88; 7 studies; 11,204 participants; moderate-quality evidence). A separate analysis also showed improvements in long-term adherence rates (more than six months) using intensification of care (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.29; 3 studies; 663 participants; high-quality evidence). Analyses of the effect on total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol levels also showed a positive effect of intensified interventions over both short- and long-term follow-up. Over the short term, total cholesterol decreased by a mean of 17.15 mg/dL (95% CI 1.17 to 33.14; 4 studies; 430 participants; low-quality evidence) and LDL-cholesterol decreased by a mean of 19.51 mg/dL (95% CI 8.51 to 30.51; 3 studies; 333 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Over the long term (more than six months) total cholesterol decreased by a mean of 17.57 mg/dL (95% CI 14.95 to 20.19; 2 studies; 127 participants; high-quality evidence). Included studies did not report usable data for health outcome indications, adverse effects or costs/resource use, so we could not pool these outcomes. We assessed each included study for bias using methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. In general, the risk of bias assessment revealed a low risk of selection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. There was unclear risk of bias relating to blinding for most studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence in our review demonstrates that intensification of patient care interventions improves short- and long-term medication adherence, as well as total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol levels. Healthcare systems which can implement team-based intensification of patient care interventions may be successful in improving patient adherence rates to lipid-lowering medicines.\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": "Of the 35 included studies, 16 compared interventions categorised as 'intensified patient care' versus usual care. These interventions included electronic reminders, pharmacist-led interventions, and healthcare professional education to help people better remember to take their medications. These types of interventions when compared to standard care demonstrated significantly better adherence rates both over the short term (up to and including six months) as well as the long term (longer than six months). Additionally, cholesterol levels were better over both long- and short-term periods in those offered the intervention, compared to those receiving usual care."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6321
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlcohol dependence is a major public health problem that is characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Besides psychosocial interventions, different pharmacological interventions have been or currently are under investigation through Cochrane systematic reviews.\nObjectives\nThe primary aim of the review is to assess the benefits/risks of anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol dependence.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (October 2013), PubMed (1966 to October 2013), EMBASE (1974 to October 2013) and CINAHL (1982 to October 2013).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing anticonvulsants alone or in association with other drugs and/or psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no treatment and other pharmacological or psychosocial interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nA total of 25 studies were included in the review (2641 participants). Most participants were male, with an average age of 44 years. Anticonvulsants were compared with placebo (17 studies), other medications (seven studies) and no medication (two studies). The mean duration of the trials was 17 weeks (range four to 52 weeks). The studies took place in the USA, Europe, South America, India and Thailand. Variation was reported in the characteristics of the studies, including their design and the rating instruments used. For many key outcomes, the risk of bias associated with unclear or unconcealed allocation and lack of blinding affected the quality of the evidence.\nAnticonvulsants versus placebo: For dropouts (16 studies, 1675 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.74 to 1.19, moderate-quality evidence) and continuous abstinence (eight studies, 634 participants, RR 1.21, 95% Cl 95% 0.97 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence), results showed no evidence of differences. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that anticonvulsants reduced drinks/drinking days (11 studies, 1126 participants, mean difference (MD) -1.49, 95% Cl -2.32 to -0.65) and heavy drinking (12 studies, 1129 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% Cl -0.51 to -0.19). Moreover, withdrawal for medical reasons (12 studies, 1410 participants, RR 1.22, 95% Cl 0.58 to 2.56, moderate-quality evidence) showed no evidence of difference, but for specific adverse effects (nine studies, 1164 participants), two of 18 adverse event outcomes favoured placebo. The direction of results was confirmed by subgroup analyses for topiramate and partially for gabapentin and valproate.\nAnticonvulsants versus naltrexone: No evidence of difference was shown in dropout rates (five studies, 528 participants, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.06), severe relapse rates (four studies, 427 participants, RR 0.69, 95% Cl 0.44 to 1.07) and continuous abstinence rates (five studies, 528 participants, RR 1.21, 95% Cl 0.99 to 1.49); anticonvulsants were associated with fewer heavy drinking days (three studies, 308 participants, MD -5.21, 95% Cl -8.58 to -1.83), more days to severe relapse (three studies, 244 participants, MD 11.88, 95% Cl 3.29 to 20.46) and lower withdrawal for medical reasons (three studies, 245 participants, RR 0.13, 95% Cl 0.03 to 0.58).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt the current stage of research, randomised evidence supporting the clinical use of anticonvulsants to treat alcohol dependence is insufficient. Results are conditioned by heterogeneity and by the low number and quality of studies comparing anticonvulsants with other medications. The uncertainty associated with these results leaves to clinicians the need to balance possible benefits/risks of treatment with anticonvulsants versus other medications as supported by evidence of efficacy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review looked at evidence on the efficacy and acceptability of anticonvulsants alone or in combination with another medication or a psychosocial intervention for the treatment of alcohol dependence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6322
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany people diagnosed with haematological malignancies experience anaemia, and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion plays an essential supportive role in their management. Different strategies have been developed for RBC transfusions. A restrictive transfusion strategy seeks to maintain a lower haemoglobin level (usually between 70 g/L to 90 g/L) with a trigger for transfusion when the haemoglobin drops below 70 g/L), whereas a liberal transfusion strategy aims to maintain a higher haemoglobin (usually between 100 g/L to 120 g/L, with a threshold for transfusion when haemoglobin drops below 100 g/L). In people undergoing surgery or who have been admitted to intensive care a restrictive transfusion strategy has been shown to be safe and in some cases safer than a liberal transfusion strategy. However, it is not known whether it is safe in people with haematological malignancies.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies for people diagnosed with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised trials (NRS) in MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 6), and 10 other databases (including four trial registries) to 15 June 2016. We also searched grey literature and contacted experts in transfusion for additional trials. There was no restriction on language, date or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs and prospective NRS that evaluated a restrictive compared with a liberal RBC transfusion strategy in children or adults with malignant haematological disorders or undergoing HSCT.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified six studies eligible for inclusion in this review; five RCTs and one NRS. Three completed RCTs (156 participants), one completed NRS (84 participants), and two ongoing RCTs. We identified one additional RCT awaiting classification. The completed studies were conducted between 1997 and 2015 and had a mean follow-up from 31 days to 2 years. One study included children receiving a HSCT (six participants), the other three studies only included adults: 218 participants with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy, and 16 with a haematological malignancy receiving a HSCT. The restrictive strategies varied from 70 g/L to 90 g/L. The liberal strategies also varied from 80 g/L to 120 g/L.\nBased on the GRADE rating methodology the overall quality of the included studies was very low to low across different outcomes. None of the included studies were free from bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. One of the three RCTs was discontinued early for safety concerns after recruiting only six children, all three participants in the liberal group developed veno-occlusive disease (VOD).\nEvidence from RCTs\nA restrictive RBC transfusion policy may make little or no difference to: the number of participants who died within 100 days (two trials, 95 participants (RR: 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.69, low-quality evidence); the number of participants who experienced any bleeding (two studies, 149 participants; RR:0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18, low-quality evidence), or clinically significant bleeding (two studies, 149 participants, RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.43, low-quality evidence); the number of participants who required RBC transfusions (three trials; 155 participants: RR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, low-quality evidence); or the length of hospital stay (restrictive median 35.5 days (interquartile range (IQR): 31.2 to 43.8); liberal 36 days (IQR: 29.2 to 44), low-quality evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether the restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: decreases quality of life (one trial, 89 participants, fatigue score: restrictive median 4.8 (IQR 4 to 5.2); liberal median 4.5 (IQR 3.6 to 5) (very low-quality evidence); or reduces the risk of developing any serious infection (one study, 89 participants, RR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.04, very low-quality evidence).\nA restrictive RBC transfusion policy may reduce the number of RBC transfusions per participant (two trials; 95 participants; mean difference (MD) -3.58, 95% CI -5.66 to -1.49, low-quality evidence).\nEvidence from NRS\nWe are uncertain whether the restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: reduces the risk of death within 100 days (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 1 death; liberal 1 death; very low-quality evidence); decreases the risk of clinically significant bleeding (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 3; liberal 8; very low-quality evidence); or decreases the number of RBC transfusions (adjusted for age, sex and acute myeloid leukaemia type geometric mean 1.25; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.47 - data analysis performed by the study authors)\nNo NRS were found that looked at: quality of life; number of participants with any bleeding; serious infection; or length of hospital stay.\nNo studies were found that looked at: adverse transfusion reactions; arterial or venous thromboembolic events; length of intensive care admission; or readmission to hospital.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFindings from this review were based on four studies and 240 participants.\nThere is low-quality evidence that a restrictive RBC transfusion policy reduces the number of RBC transfusions per participant. There is low-quality evidence that a restrictive RBC transfusion policy has little or no effect on: mortality at 30 to 100 days, bleeding, or hospital stay. This evidence is mainly based on adults with acute leukaemia who are having chemotherapy. Although, the two ongoing studies (530 participants) are due to be completed by January 2018 and will provide additional information for adults with haematological malignancies, we will not be able to answer this review's primary outcome. If we assume a mortality rate of 3% within 100 days we would need 1492 participants to have a 80% chance of detecting, as significant at the 5% level, an increase in all-cause mortality from 3% to 6%. Further RCTs are required in children.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "People with blood cancers often have anaemia (low haemoglobin level) due to their underlying cancer or its treatment (chemotherapy or a stem cell transplant. Haemoglobin is essential for carrying oxygen around the body.\nA red blood cell transfusion is given to increase the haemoglobin level to prevent symptoms of anaemia occurring, or to treat symptoms of anaemia. The decision to give a red cell transfusion should balance its benefits with its potential risks (e.g. rash, fever, chills, developing breathing problems). These reactions are usually mild and easily treated, severe reactions to red blood cell transfusions are extremely rare. In high-income countries the likelihood of getting an infection from a red blood cell transfusion is very low, however the risk is much higher in low-income countries. The need for a red cell transfusion is usually guided by the haemoglobin level. In people with other conditions a transfusion is usually given if the haemoglobin level drops to around 70 g/L to 80 g/L (restrictive transfusion strategy). People with blood cancers may benefit from a higher haemoglobin level (100 g/L to 120g/L, liberal transfusion strategy), they may bleed less and have an improved quality of life. In people undergoing surgery or people who are admitted to intensive care units a restrictive transfusion strategy has been shown to be as safe as, or safer than a liberal transfusion strategy."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6323
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFollowing hip fracture, people sustain an acute blood loss caused by the injury and subsequent surgery. Because the majority of hip fractures occur in older adults, blood loss may be compounded by pre-existing anaemia. Allogenic blood transfusions (ABT) may be given before, during, and after surgery to correct chronic anaemia or acute blood loss. However, there is uncertainty about the benefit-risk ratio for ABT. This is a potentially scarce resource, with availability of blood products sometimes uncertain. Other strategies from Patient Blood Management may prevent or minimise blood loss and avoid administration of ABT.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and other systematic reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, administered perioperatively, on reducing blood loss, anaemia, and the need for ABT in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery.\nMethods\nIn January 2022, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions given to prevent or minimise blood loss, treat the effects of anaemia, and reduce the need for ABT, in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. We searched for pharmacological interventions (fibrinogen, factor VIIa and factor XIII, desmopressin, antifibrinolytics, fibrin and non-fibrin sealants and glue, agents to reverse the effects of anticoagulants, erythropoiesis agents, iron, vitamin B12, and folate replacement therapy) and non-pharmacological interventions (surgical approaches to reduce or manage blood loss, intraoperative cell salvage and autologous blood transfusion, temperature management, and oxygen therapy).\nWe used Cochrane methodology, and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR 2. We assessed the degree of overlap of RCTs between reviews. Because overlap was very high, we used a hierarchical approach to select reviews from which to report data; we compared the findings of selected reviews with findings from the other reviews. Outcomes were: number of people requiring ABT, volume of transfused blood (measured as units of packed red blood cells (PRC)), postoperative delirium, adverse events, activities of daily living (ADL), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mortality.\nMain results\nWe found 26 systematic reviews including 36 RCTs (3923 participants), which only evaluated tranexamic acid and iron. We found no reviews of other pharmacological interventions or any non-pharmacological interventions.\nTranexamic acid (17 reviews, 29 eligible RCTs)\nWe selected reviews with the most recent search date, and which included data for the most outcomes. The methodological quality of these reviews was low. However, the findings were largely consistent across reviews.\nOne review included 24 RCTs, with participants who had internal fixation or arthroplasty for different types of hip fracture. Tranexamic acid was given intravenously or topically during the perioperative period. In this review, based on a control group risk of 451 people per 1000, 194 fewer people per 1000 probably require ABT after receiving tranexamic acid (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.68; 21 studies, 2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty for possible publication bias.\nReview authors found that there was probably little or no difference in the risks of adverse events, reported as deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.81; 22 studies), pulmonary embolism (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.86; 9 studies), myocardial infarction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.33; 8 studies), cerebrovascular accident (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.70; 8 studies), or death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.46; 10 studies). We judged evidence from these outcomes to be moderate certainty, downgraded for imprecision.\nAnother review, with a similarly broad inclusion criteria, included 10 studies, and found that tranexamic acid probably reduces the volume of transfused PRC (0.53 fewer units, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.80; 7 studies, 813 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty because of unexplained high levels of statistical heterogeneity.\nNo reviews reported outcomes of postoperative delirium, ADL, or HRQoL.\nIron (9 reviews, 7 eligible RCTs)\nWhilst all reviews included studies in hip fracture populations, most also included other surgical populations. The most current, direct evidence was reported in two RCTs, with 403 participants with hip fracture; iron was given intravenously, starting preoperatively. This review did not include evidence for iron with erythropoietin. The methodological quality of this review was low.\nIn this review, there was low-certainty evidence from two studies (403 participants) that there may be little or no difference according to whether intravenous iron was given in: the number of people who required ABT (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11), the volume of transfused blood (MD -0.07 units of PRC, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.17), infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.80), or mortality within 30 days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.13). There may be little or no difference in delirium (25 events in the iron group compared to 26 events in control group; 1 study, 303 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very unsure whether there was any difference in HRQoL, since it was reported without an effect estimate. The findings were largely consistent across reviews. We downgraded the evidence for imprecision, because studies included few participants, and the wide CIs indicated possible benefit and harm.\nNo reviews reported outcomes of cognitive dysfunction, ADL, or HRQoL.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTranexamic acid probably reduces the need for ABT in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery, and there is probably little or no difference in adverse events. For iron, there may be little or no difference in overall clinical effects, but this finding is limited by evidence from only a few small studies. Reviews of these treatments did not adequately include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), and evidence for their effectiveness remains incomplete. We were unable to effectively explore the impact of timing and route of administration between reviews.\nA lack of systematic reviews for other types of pharmacological or any non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the need for ABT indicates a need for further evidence syntheses to explore this. Methodologically sound evidence syntheses should include PROMS within four months of surgery.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are only moderately confident in the evidence that tranexamic acid reduces the need for blood transfusion. The studies that provided results in our selected review may not represent all of the evidence, and this may have exaggerated the benefits of this treatment. For other outcomes, some studies were too small, reported wide differences in their results, and we could not be certain if all the studies were well-designed to give a reliable result.\nWe have little confidence in our findings for iron treatment, because the studies were too small to produce reliable results.\nThere were some flaws in the way all of the reviews came to their final conclusions, meaning that they may not have been conducted to the highest possible standard. However, the results in each review were all similar, and this meant that we were more confident that their results were accurately collected from study reports."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6324
|
[
{
"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: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Are there any safe and effective interventions that prevent or reduce kidney complications in people with sickle cell disease (SCD)?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6325
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAdalimumab is an IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets and blocks tumor necrosis factor-alpha, a pro-inflammatory cytokine involved in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease (CD). A significant proportion of people with CD fail conventional therapy or therapy with biologics or develop significant adverse events. Adalimumab may be an effective alternative for these individuals.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of this review were to assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab for the induction of remission in CD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, ClinicalTrials.Gov and the World Health Organization trial registry (ICTRP) from inception to 16 April 2019. References and conference abstracts were searched to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose of adalimumab to placebo or an active comparator in participants with active CD were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. The primary outcome was the failure to achieve clinical remission, as defined by the original studies. Clinical remission was defined as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of less than 150 points. Secondary outcomes included failure to achieve clinical response (defined as a decrease in CDAI of > 100 points or > 70 points from baseline), failure to achieve endoscopic remission and response, failure to achieve histological remission and response, failure to achieve steroid withdrawal, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawal from study due to AEs and quality of life measured by a validated instrument. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. Data were pooled for analysis if the participants, interventions, outcomes and time frame were similar. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nThree placebo-controlled RCTs (714 adult participants) were included. The participants had moderate to severely active CD (CDAI 220 to 450). Two studies were rated as at low risk of bias and one study was rated as at unclear risk of bias. Seventy-six per cent (342/451) of adalimumab participants failed to achieve clinical remission at four weeks compared to 91% (240/263) of placebo participants (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.90; high-certainty evidence). Forty-four per cent (197/451) of adalimumab participants compared to 66% (173/263) of placebo participants failed to achieve a 70-point clinical response at four weeks (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79; high-certainty evidence). At four weeks, 57% (257/451) of adalimumab participants failed to achieve a 100-point clinical response compared to 76% (199/263) of placebo participants (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.86; high-certainty evidence). Sixty-two per cent (165/268) of adalimumab participants experienced an AE compared to 72% (188/263) of participants in the placebo group (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09; moderate-certainty evidence). Two percent (6/268) of adalimumab participants experienced a SAE compared to 5% (13/263) of participants in the placebo group (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.15; low-certainty evidence). Lastly, 1% (3/268) of adalimumab participants withdrew due to AEs compared to 3% (8/268) of participants in the placebo group (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.30; low-certainty evidence). Commonly reported adverse events included injection site reactions, abdominal pain, fatigue, worsening CD and nausea. Quality of life data did not allow for meta-analysis. Three studies reported better quality of life at four weeks with adalimumab (measured with either Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire or Short-Form 36; moderate-certainty evidence). Endoscopic remission and response, histologic remission and response, and steroid withdrawal were not reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigh-certainty evidence suggests that adalimumab is superior to placebo for induction of clinical remission and clinical response in people with moderate to severely active CD. Although the rates of AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to AEs were lower in adalimumab participants compared to placebo, we are uncertain about the effect of adalimumab on AEs due to the low number of events. Therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the safety of adalimumab in CD. Futher studies are required to look at the long-term effectiveness and safety of using adalimumab in participants with CD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is Crohn's disease?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Crohn's disease is a bowel disease in which the walls of the gastrointestinal tract become inflamed. Any part of the gastrointestinal tract can become affected, from the mouth to the anus. Symptoms can include abdominal pain, bloody diarrhea and weight loss. When people with Crohn's disease are experiencing symptoms, the disease is considered to be 'active'. When symptoms stop, the disease is considered to be in 'remission'."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6326
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTelephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I2 statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).\nMain results\nWe identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.\nAmong trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I2 = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.\nIn studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I2 = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I2 = 0%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.\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": "There are a number of interventions available to help people stop smoking. One of them is using telephone calls to give smokers information, advice, and help to stop smoking. People can use these services by calling quitlines or by signing up to get calls from counsellors. We wanted to find out whether telephone counselling can help people quit smoking. Our most recent search for evidence was in May 2018."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6327
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is characterised by the regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a common presentation in infancy, both in primary and secondary care, affecting approximately 50% of infants under three months old. The natural history of GOR in infancy is generally of a self-limiting condition that improves with age, but older children and children with co-existing medical conditions can have more protracted symptoms. The distinction between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and GOR is debated. Current National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines define GORD as GOR causing symptoms severe enough to merit treatment. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for GOR in infants and children.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 17 September 2022. We also searched for ongoing trials in clinical trials registries, contacted experts in the field, and searched the reference lists of trials and reviews for any additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any currently-available pharmacological treatment for GOR in children with placebo or another medication. We excluded studies assessing dietary management of GORD and studies of thickened feeds. We included studies in infants and children up to 16 years old.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodology expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 36 RCTs involving 2251 children and infants. We were able to extract summary data from 14 RCTs; the remaining trials had insufficient data for extraction. We were unable to pool results in a meta-analysis due to methodological differences in the included studies (including heterogeneous outcomes, study populations, and study design).\nWe present the results in two groups by age: infants up to 12 months old, and children aged 12 months to 16 years old.\nInfants\nOmeprazole versus placebo: there is no clear effect on symptoms from omeprazole. One study (30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed cry/fuss time in infants aged three to 12 months had altered from 246 ± 105 minutes/day at baseline (mean +/- standard deviation (SD)) to 191 ± 120 minutes/day in the omeprazole group and from 287 ± 132 minutes/day to 201 ± 100 minutes/day in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 10 minutes/day lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -89.1 to 69.1)). The reflux index changed in the omeprazole group from 9.9 ± 5.8% in 24 hours to 1.0 ± 1.3% and in the placebo group from 7.2 ± 6.0% to 5.3 ± 4.9% in 24 hours (MD 7% lower, 95% CI -4.7 to -9.3).\nOmeprazole versus ranitidine: one study (76 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed omeprazole may or may not provide symptomatic benefit equivalent to ranitidine. Symptom scores in the omeprazole group changed from 51.9 ± 5.4 to 2.4 ± 1.2, and in the ranitidine group from 47 ± 5.6 to 2.5 ± 0.6 after two weeks: MD -4.97 (95% CI -7.33 to -2.61).\nEsomeprazole versus placebo: esomeprazole appeared to show no additional reduction in the number of GORD symptoms compared to placebo (1 study, 52 neonates; very low-certainty evidence): both the esomeprazole group (184.7 ± 78.5 to 156.7 ± 75.1) and placebo group (183.1 ± 77.5 to 158.3 ± 75.9) improved: MD -3.2 (95% CI -4.6 to -1.8).\nChildren\nProton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at different doses may provide little to no symptomatic and endoscopic benefit.\nRabeprazole given at different doses (0.5 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg) may provide similar symptom improvement (127 children in total; very low-certainty evidence). In the lower-dose group (0.5 mg/kg), symptom scores improved in both a low-weight group of children (< 15 kg) (mean -10.6 ± SD 11.13) and a high-weight group of children (> 15 kg) (mean -13.6 ± 13.1). In the higher-dose groups (1 mg/kg), scores improved in the low-weight (-9 ± 11.2) and higher-weight groups (-8.3 ± 9.2). For the higher-weight group, symptom score mean difference between the two different dosing regimens was 2.3 (95% CI -2 to 6.6), and for the lower-weight group, symptom score MD was 4.6 (95% CI -2.9 to 12).\nPantoprazole: pantoprazole may or may not improve symptom scores at 0.3 mg/kg, 0.6 mg/kg, and 1.2 mg/kg pantoprazole in children aged one to five years by week eight, with no difference between 0.3 mg/kg and 1.2 mg/kg dosing (0.3 mg/kg mean −2.4 ± 1.7; 1.2 mg/kg −1.7 ± 1.2: MD 0.7 (95% CI -0.4 to 1.8)) (one study, 60 children; very low-certainty evidence).\nThere were insufficient summary data to assess other medications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-certainty evidence about symptom improvements and changes in pH indices for infants. There are no summary data for endoscopic changes. Medications may or may not provide a benefit (based on very low-certainty evidence) for infants whose symptoms remain bothersome, despite nonmedical interventions or parental reassurance. If a medication is required, there is no clear evidence based on summary data for omeprazole, esomeprazole (in neonates), H₂antagonists, and alginates for symptom improvements (very low-certainty evidence). Further studies with longer follow-up are needed.\nIn older children with GORD, in studies with summary data extracted, there is very low-certainty evidence that PPIs (rabeprazole and pantoprazole) may or may not improve GORD outcomes. No robust data exist for other medications.\nFurther RCT evidence is required in all areas, including subgroups (preterm babies and children with neurodisabilities).\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 are not confident in the evidence, which was mainly based on single studies with few babies and children. Several studies had pharmaceutical company help with manuscript writing. The question of how best to treat children with disabilities, and whether any PPIs are better than other medicines remain. The evidence is current to 17 September 2022."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6328
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPsychosis is three times more common in people with an intellectual disability than in those without an intellectual disability. A low intelligence quotient (IQ) is a defining characteristic for intellectual disability and a risk factor for poor outcome in psychosis. Clozapine is recommended for treatment-resistant psychosis. The effect of psychotropic medication can be different in people with intellectual disability; for example, they may be more prone to side effects. People with an intellectual disability and psychosis form a special subgroup and we wanted to examine if there is randomised controlled trial (RCT) data in this population to support the use of clozapine.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of clozapine for treating adults with a dual diagnosis of intellectual disability and psychosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and eight other databases up to December 2014. We also searched two trials registers, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials, and contacted the manufacturers of clozapine.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs that assessed the effects of clozapine, at any dose, for treating adults (aged 18 years and over) with a dual diagnosis of intellectual disability and psychotic disorder, compared with placebo or another antipsychotic medication.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently screened all titles, abstracts and any relevant full-text reports against the inclusion criteria.\nMain results\nOf the 1224 titles and abstracts screened, we shortlisted 38 full-text articles, which we subsequently excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. These studies were not RCTs. Consequently, no studies are included in this Cochrane review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are currently no RCTs that assess the efficacy and side effects of clozapine in people with intellectual disabilities and psychoses. Given the use of clozapine in this vulnerable population, there is an urgent need for a RCT of clozapine in people with a dual diagnosis of intellectual disability and psychosis to fill the evidence gap.\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 intellectual disability have a low score on intelligence tests. They have problems in areas like self-care, social relationships, work, education and dealing with the challenges of daily life. To make a diagnosis of intellectual disability, we use tests in which we compare the performance of an individual person on certain tasks with other people of his or her age. People with intellectual disabilities are unable to process information as efficiently as people without intellectual disability. Depending on the severity of their condition, they need varying degrees of support to cope with the demands and expectations of life. Those who have a mild intellectual disability are able to manage their affairs with some additional support. Those who have a severe intellectual disability, most of the time are unable to live independently and require support on a daily basis.\nPsychosis is a disorder of the mind in which people hear voices when there is no external source of the voices and they harbour unfounded beliefs called delusions. Psychosis affects their behaviour, relationships, performance at work, and other spheres of daily life. Psychosis is three times more common in people with an intellectual disability than those without an intellectual disability. Psychosis is treated with a group of drugs called antipsychotics. These drugs can have different desired and undesired (i.e. side effects) effects in different people. When at least two antipsychotics are not effective in treating the symptoms of psychosis, it is labelled as treatment-resistant psychosis. Clozapine is recommended for treatment-resistant psychosis.\nPeople who have an intellectual disability and who also suffer from psychosis are at a higher risk of developing treatment-resistant psychosis. We systematically reviewed all available evidence which examined the effects of clozapine in people with intellectual disabilities and psychoses."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6329
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSevoflurane induction for general anaesthesia has been reported to be safe, reliable and well accepted by patients. Sevoflurane induction uses either low or high initial concentrations. The low initial concentration technique involves initially administering a low concentration of sevoflurane and gradually increasing the concentration of the dose until the patient is anaesthetized. The high initial concentration technique involves administering high concentrations from the beginning, then continuing with those high doses until the patient is anaesthetized. This review was originally published in 2013 and has been updated in 2016.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to compare induction times and complication rates between high and low initial concentration sevoflurane anaesthetic induction techniques in adults and children who received inhalational induction for general anaesthesia. We defined 'high' as greater than or equal to and 'low' as less than a 4% initial concentration.\nSearch methods\nFor the updated review, we searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2016), EMBASE (1980 to February 2016), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to February 2016) and the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1946 to February 2016). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings and contacted the authors of included trials. The original search was run in September 2011.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought all published and unpublished, randomized controlled trials comparing high versus low initial sevoflurane concentration inhalational induction. Our primary outcomes included two measures of anaesthesia (time to loss of the eyelash reflex (LOER) and time until a weighted object held in the patient's hand was dropped), time to successful insertion of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and time to endotracheal intubation. Other outcomes were complications of the technique.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standardized methods for conducting a systematic review as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors independently extracted details of trial methods and outcome data from reports of all trials considered eligible for inclusion. We conducted all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis, when possible. We estimated overall treatment effects by using a fixed-effect model when we found no substantial heterogeneity, whereas we applied the random-effects model in the presence of considerable heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe reran the searches and included one new study (100 participants) in this updated review. In total, we included 11 studies with 829 participants, although most analyses were based on data from fewer participants and evidence of low quality. We noted substantial heterogeneity in the included trials. Thus, our results should be read with caution. It was not possible to combine trials for the primary outcome (LOER), but individual trials reported faster induction times (typically 24 to 82 seconds faster, 41 seconds (31.37 to 50.62)) with high initial concentration sevoflurane (six studies, 443 participants, low-quality evidence). Apnoea appeared to be more common in the high initial concentration sevoflurane group (risk ratio (RR) 3.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 5.7, two studies, 160 participants, low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of differences between the two groups in the incidence of cough (odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.81, eight studies, 589 participants, low-quality evidence), laryngospasm (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.16 to 15.9, seven studies, 588 participants, low-quality evidence), breath holding (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.83, five studies, 389 participants, low-quality evidence), patient movement (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.89, five studies, 445 participants, low-quality evidence) or bradycardia (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.88, three studies, 199 participants, low-quality evidence), and the overall incidence of complications was low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA high initial concentration sevoflurane technique probably offers more rapid induction of anaesthesia and a similar rate of complications, except for apnoea, which may be more common with a high initial concentration. However, this conclusion is not definitive because the included studies provided evidence of low quality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The high initial concentration technique shortened induction time (six studies, 443 participants, low-quality evidence) and led to similar rates of cough (eight studies, 589 participants, low-quality evidence), sudden sustained closure of the vocal cords that prevented breathing (seven studies, 588 participants, low-quality evidence), breath holding (five studies, 389 participants, low-quality evidence), sudden movements (five studies, 445 participants, low-quality evidence) and slow heart rate (three studies, 199 participants, low-quality evidence). The high initial concentration technique showed greater suspension of breathing when compared with the low initial concentration technique (two studies, 160 participants, low-quality evidence)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6330
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn the treatment of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, we are currently uncertain of the benefits and harms of standard pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) compared to extended PLND.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of extended versus standard PLND in patients undergoing cystectomy to treat muscle-invasive (cT2 and cT3) and treatment-refractory, non-muscle-invasive (cT1 with or without carcinoma in situ) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive literature search using multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and LILACS), trial registries, and conference proceedings published up to April 29, 2019, with no restrictions on the language or status of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials in which participants underwent radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive or therapy-refractory non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder with either an extended PLND with a superior extent reaching as far cranially as the inferior mesenteric vein, or a standard PLND with a superior extent of the bifurcation of the internal and external iliac artery, with otherwise the same anatomical boundaries.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data from them for the primary outcomes: time to death from any cause, time to death from bladder cancer and Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications grade III-V, and the secondary outcomes: time to recurrence, Clavien-Dindo I-II complications and disease-specific quality of life.\nWe performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThe search identified one multicenter trial based in Germany that enrolled 401 participants with histologically confirmed T1 grade 3 or muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. The median age was 67 years (range: 59 to 74) and the majority of participants were male (78.3%). No participant received neoadjuvant chemotherapy; a small subset received adjuvant chemotherapy (14.5%).\nPrimary outcomes\nOur results indicate that extended PLND may reduce the risk of death from any cause over time as compared to standard PLND, but the confidence interval includes the possibility of no effect (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 1.07, 401 participants, low-certainty evidence). After five years of follow-up, this may result in 83 fewer deaths (95% CI: 174 fewer to 24 more overall deaths) per 1000 participants: 420 deaths for extended PLND compared to 503 deaths per 1000 for standard PLND. We downgraded the certainty of evidence by two levels due to study limitations and imprecision.\nOur results indicate that extended PLND may reduce the risk of death from bladder cancer over time as compared to standard PLND but, again, the confidence interval includes the possibility of no effect (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.07, participants = 401, low-certainty evidence). After five years of follow-up, this corresponds to 91 fewer deaths per 1000 participants (95% CI: 176 fewer to 19 more bladder cancer deaths): 264 deaths for extended PLND compared to 355 deaths per 1000 for standard PLND. We downgraded the certainty of evidence by two levels due to study limitations and imprecision.\nBased on follow-up of up to 30 days, we are uncertain whether extended PLND leads to more grade III-V complications as compared to standard PLND, because of study limitations and imprecision (risk ratio [RR]: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.52, participants = 401, very low-certainty evidence).\nSecondary outcomes\nWe are uncertain whether extended PLND reduces the risk of recurrence over time as compared to standard PLND, because of study limitations and imprecision (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.22, participants = 401, very low-certainty evidence).\nBased on follow-up of up to 30 days, we are uncertain whether extended PLND leads to similar grade I-II complications as compared to standard PLND because of study limitations and imprecision (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.19, participants = 401, very low-certainty evidence).\nWe found no trials that reported on disease-specific quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults from a single trial indicate that extended PLND in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder may reduce death from any cause and death from bladder cancer over time; however, the results include the possibility of no effect. We are uncertain whether the risk of serious complications up to 30 days may be increased. We are also uncertain as to whether the risk of recurrence over time or the risk of minor complications up to 30 days changes. We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses, in particular, analyses based on extended lymph node dissection templates, clinical tumor stage, and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy that may be important effect modifiers. Important additional data is expected from a larger, ongoing trial that will also consider the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Inclusion of this trial in the meta-analysis may help address the issue of imprecision which was a common reason for downgrading the certainty of the evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included only studies in which chance determined whether people got a standard or extended lymph node dissection that was reported in literature up to April 29, 2019."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6331
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWomen between the ages of 15 and 24 years have high rates of unintended pregnancy; over half of women in this age group want to avoid pregnancy. However, women under age 25 years have higher typical contraceptive failure rates within the first 12 months of use than older women. High discontinuation rates may also be a problem in this population. Concern that adolescents and young women will not find hormonal or intrauterine contraceptives acceptable or effective might deter healthcare providers from recommending these contraceptive methods.\nObjectives\nTo compare the contraceptive failure (pregnancy) rates and to examine the continuation rates for hormonal and intrauterine contraception among young women aged 25 years and younger.\nSearch methods\nWe searched until 4 August 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hormonal or intrauterine methods of contraception in women aged 25 years and younger. Computerized databases included the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, CINAHL, and LILACS. We also searched for current trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).\nSelection criteria\nWe considered RCTs in any language that reported the contraceptive failure rates for hormonal or intrauterine contraceptive methods, when compared with another contraceptive method, for women aged 25 years and younger. The other contraceptive method could have been another intrauterine contraceptive, another hormonal contraceptive or different dose of the same method, or a non-hormonal contraceptive. Treatment duration must have been at least three months. Eligible trials had to include the primary outcome of contraceptive failure rate (pregnancy). The secondary outcome was contraceptive continuation rate.\nData collection and analysis\nOne author conducted the primary data extraction and entered the information into Review Manager. Another author performed an independent data extraction and verified the initial entry. For dichotomous outcomes, we computed the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Because of disparate interventions and outcome measures, we did not conduct meta-analysis.\nMain results\nFive trials met the inclusion criteria. The studies included a total of 1503 women, with a mean of 301 participants. The trials compared the following contraceptives: combined oral contraceptive (COC) versus transdermal contraceptive patch, vaginal contraceptive ring, or levonorgestrel intrauterine system 20 µg/day (LNG-IUS 20); LNG-IUS 12 µg/day (LNG-IUS 12) versus LNG-IUS 16 µg/day (LNG-IUS 16); and LNG-IUS 20 versus the copper T380A intrauterine device (IUD). In the trials comparing two different types of methods, the study arms did not differ significantly for contraceptive efficacy or continuation. The sample sizes were small for two of those studies. The only significant outcome was that a COC group had a higher proportion of women who discontinued for 'other personal reasons' compared with the group assigned to the LNG-IUS 20 (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85), which may have little clinic relevance. The trial comparing LNG-IUS 12 versus LNG-IUS 16 showed similar efficacy over one and three years. In three trials that examined different LNG-IUS, continuation was at least 75% at 6 to 36 months.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe considered the overall quality of evidence to be moderate to low. Limitations were due to trial design or limited reporting. Different doses in the LNG-IUS did not appear to influence efficacy over three years. In another study, continuation of the LNG-IUS appeared at least as high as that for the COC. The current evidence was insufficient to compare efficacy and continuation rates for hormonal and intrauterine contraceptive methods in women aged 25 years and younger.\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 for randomized trials of birth control methods until August 2015. Randomized trials are clinical studies in which people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups. Women in these studies were 25 years old or younger. The birth control methods could be either hormonal or a non-hormonal device placed in the uterus. The hormonal methods included pills, vaginal rings, or implants. The methods that are placed in the uterus include the intrauterine device (IUD) without hormones and the intrauterine system that has the hormone levonorgestrel (LNG-IUS). IUDs and the LNG-IUS are sometimes called intrauterine contraception (IUC)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6332
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 19 March 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control.\nMain results\nWe included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers.\nFABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required\nCompared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nCompared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).\nFABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required\nThere may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nCompared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events.\nFurther research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks.\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 studies which contributed data were well-designed and robust, although two were open-label (participants knew which treatment they were getting), with some potential for bias, so the evidence was generally of moderate-to-high quality."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6333
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCOVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and – due to its contagious nature – to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of HCWs are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help reduce the risk of active infection being passed from infected patients to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves, or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose. Understanding these possible side effects is particularly important when the HCWs are otherwise fit and well.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays used by healthcare workers (HCWs) to protect themselves when treating patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.\nSearch methods\nInformation Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020.\nSelection criteria\nThis is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: RCTs; quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies.\nWe sought studies comparing any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered to HCWs, with or without the same intervention being given to the patients with COVID-19.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 2) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 3) viral content of aerosol, when present (if intervention administered to patients); 4) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 5) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified three ongoing studies (including two RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 700 participants. The interventions included in these trials are povidone iodine, nitric oxide and GLS-1200 oral spray (the constituent of this spray is unclear and may not be antimicrobial in nature).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by two RCTs and a non-randomised study. We are concerned that only one of the ongoing studies specifically states that it will evaluate adverse events and it is not clear if this will include changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof.\nVery few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular, where those receiving the intervention are otherwise fit and well, it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How did we search for evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our team of researchers searched the medical literature for studies that compared the effects of any antimicrobial mouthwash or nasal spray used by healthcare workers against no treatment, water or a salt solution."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6334
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPortal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Therefore, prevention is important.\nBand ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in paediatric patients because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children and adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (April 2020). We screened the reference lists of the retrieved publications and manually searched the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conference (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to December 2019. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) for ongoing clinical trials. We imposed no language or document type restrictions on our search.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status to assess benefits and harms. We included observational studies, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials, for a narrative report of harm.\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to asses risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to use intention-to-treat principle. We planned to analyse data with RevMan Analysis.\nMain results\nWe found no randomised clinical trials that assessed beta-blockers compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. We found four observational studies that reported on harms. As a systematic search for observational studies was not planned, we only listed the reported harms in a table.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRandomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of beta-blockers versus placebo on patient-relevant clinical outcomes, such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of the two interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Aims\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention for the prevention of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. We searched for trials until April 2020."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6335
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are the most frequent causes of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Management strategies that reduce losses in the clinical pathway from infection to cure might improve STI control and reduce complications resulting from lack of, or inadequate, treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of home-based specimen collection as part of the management strategy for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections compared with clinic-based specimen collection in sexually-active people.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS on 27 May 2015, together with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of home-based compared with clinic-based specimen collection in the management of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae infections.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome was index case management, defined as the number of participants tested, diagnosed and treated, if test positive.\nMain results\nTen trials involving 10,479 participants were included. There was inconclusive evidence of an effect on the proportion of participants with index case management (defined as individuals tested, diagnosed and treated for CT or NG, or both) in the group with home-based (45/778, 5.8%) compared with clinic-based (51/788, 6.5%) specimen collection (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.29; 3 trials, I² = 0%, 1566 participants, moderate quality). Harms of home-based specimen collection were not evaluated in any trial. All 10 trials compared the proportions of individuals tested. The results for the proportion of participants completing testing had high heterogeneity (I² = 100%) and were not pooled. We could not combine data from individual studies looking at the number of participants tested because the proportions varied widely across the studies, ranging from 30% to 96% in home group and 6% to 97% in clinic group (low-quality evidence). The number of participants with positive test was lower in the home-based specimen collection group (240/2074, 11.6%) compared with the clinic-based group (179/967, 18.5%) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86; 9 trials, I² = 0%, 3041 participants, moderate quality).\nAuthors' conclusions\nHome-based specimen collection could result in similar levels of index case management for CT or NG infection when compared with clinic-based specimen collection. Increases in the proportion of individuals tested as a result of home-based, compared with clinic-based, specimen collection are offset by a lower proportion of positive results. The harms of home-based specimen collection compared with clinic-based specimen collection have not been evaluated. Future RCTs to assess the effectiveness of home-based specimen collection should be designed to measure biological outcomes of STI case management, such as proportion of participants with negative tests for the relevant STI at follow-up.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There was no evidence of a difference between home-based and clinic-based specimen collection in the proportion of people who completed testing, diagnosis and treatment. In the home-based group 45 infections were detected and treated in a total of 778 people invited to collect specimens at home. In the clinic-based group 51 infections were detected and treated in a total of 788 people invited to attend a clinic. We could not combine data from individual studies looking at the number of participants tested because the proportions varied widely. A lower number of participants diagnosed in the home-based compared with the clinic-based group was documented. The potential harms of testing with home-collected specimens were not evaluated in any trial."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6336
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMeasurement of cervical length by ultrasound is predictive of preterm birth (PTB). There are three methods of ultrasound cervical assessment: transvaginal (TVU), transabdominal (TAU), and transperineal (TPU, also called translabial). Cervical length measured by TVU is a relatively new screening test, and has been associated with better prediction of PTB than previously available tests. It is unclear if cervical length measured by ultrasound is effective for preventing PTB. This is an update of a review last published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of antenatal management based on transvaginal, transabdominal, and transperineal (also called translabial) ultrasound screening of cervical length for preventing preterm birth.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to 30 August 2018; reviewed the reference lists of all articles, and contacted experts in the field for additional and ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCT) including pregnant women between the gestational ages of 14 to 32 weeks, for whom the cervical length was screened for risk of PTB with TVU, TAU, or TPU. This review focused on studies based on knowledge versus no knowledge of cervical length results, or ultrasound versus no ultrasound for cervical length. We excluded studies based on interventions (e.g. progesterone, cerclage) for short cervical length.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs (N = 923): one examined asymptomatic women with twin pregnancies; four included women with singleton pregnancies and symptoms of preterm labour (PTL); one included women with singleton pregnancies and symptoms of preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM); and one included asymptomatic singletons. All trials used TVU for screening.\nWe assessed the risk of bias of the included studies as mixed, and the quality of the evidence for primary outcomes as very low for all populations.\nFor asymptomatic women with twin pregnancies, it is uncertain whether knowledge of TVU-measured cervical length compared to no knowledge reduces PTB at less than 34 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.30 to 1.25; 1 study, 125 participants) because the quality of the evidence is very low. The results were also inconclusive for preterm birth at 36, 32, or 30 weeks; gestational age at birth, and other maternal and perinatal outcomes.\nFour trials examined knowledge of TVU-measured cervical length of singletons with symptoms of PTL versus no knowledge. We are uncertain of the effects because of inconclusive results and very low-quality evidence for: preterm births at less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.32; 2 studies, 242 participants; I² = 66%; Tau² = 0.23). Birth occurred about four days later in the knowledge groups (mean difference (MD) 0.64 weeks, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.25; 3 trials, 290 women). The results were inconclusive for the other outcomes for which there were available data: PTB at less than 34 or 28 weeks; birthweight less than 2500 g; perinatal death; maternal hospitalisation; tocolysis; and steroids for fetal lung maturity.\nThe trial of singletons with PPROM (N = 92) evaluated safety of using TVU to measure cervical length in this population as its primary outcome, not its effect on management. The results were inconclusive for incidence of maternal and neonatal infections between the TVU and no ultrasound groups.\nIn the trial of asymptomatic singletons (N = 296), in which women either received TVU or not, the results were inconclusive for preterm birth at less than 37 weeks (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.61; I² = 0%), gestational age at birth, and other perinatal and maternal outcomes.\nWe downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, inconsistency between the trials, and imprecision, due to small sample size and wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect.\nNo trial compared the effect of knowledge of the CL with no knowledge of CL in other populations, such as asymptomatic women with singleton pregnancies, or symptomatic women with twin pregnancies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are limited data on the effects of knowing the cervical length, measured by ultrasound, for preventing preterm births, which preclude us from drawing any conclusions for women with asymptomatic twin or singleton pregnancies, singleton pregnancies with PPROM, or other populations and clinical scenarios.\nLimited evidence suggests that knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound-measured cervical length, used to inform the management of women with singleton pregnancies and symptoms of preterm labour, appears to prolong pregnancy by about four days over women in the no knowledge groups.\nFuture studies could look at specific populations separately (e.g. singleton versus twins; symptoms versus no symptoms of PTL), report on all pertinent maternal and perinatal outcomes, and include cost-effectiveness analyses. Most importantly, future studies should include a clear protocol for management of women based on TVU-measured cervical length.\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 the lower part of the uterus that connects to the vagina. When women are not pregnant, it is normally at least 3 cm long. During pregnancy, a short cervical length is associated with a risk of spontaneous preterm birth. The shorter the cervical length, the greater the risk. Therefore, measuring cervical length by ultrasound can help predict spontaneous preterm birth. The cervical length is measured by an ultrasound scan through the vagina (transvaginal or TVU), abdomen (transabdominal), or the perineum (transperineal). The most common causes of spontaneous preterm birth are preterm labour or preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Many of the interventions used to prevent preterm birth are used once symptoms develop."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6337
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous leg ulcers (VLUs) are a common type of complex wound that have a negative impact on people's lives and incur high costs for health services and society. It has been suggested that prolonged high levels of protease activity in the later stages of the healing of chronic wounds may be associated with delayed healing. Protease modulating treatments have been developed which seek to modulate protease activity and thereby promote healing in chronic wounds.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether protease activity is an independent prognostic factor for the healing of venous leg ulcers.\nSearch methods\nIn February 2018, we searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and CINAHL.\nSelection criteria\nWe included prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies with any follow-up period that recruited people with VLUs and investigated whether protease activity in wound fluid was associated with future healing of VLUs. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed as cohort studies, provided interventions were taken into account in the analysis, and case-control studies if there were no available cohort studies. We also included prediction model studies provided they reported separately associations of individual prognostic factors (protease activity) with healing. Studies of any type of protease or combination of proteases were eligible, including proteases from bacteria, and the prognostic factor could be examined as a continuous or categorical variable; any cut-off point was permitted. The primary outcomes were time to healing (survival analysis) and the proportion of people with ulcers completely healed; the secondary outcome was change in ulcer size/rate of wound closure. We extracted unadjusted (simple) and adjusted (multivariable) associations between the prognostic factor and healing.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage, and undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and GRADE assessment. We collected association statistics where available. No study reported adjusted analyses: instead we collected unadjusted results or calculated association measures from raw data. We calculated risk ratios when both outcome and prognostic factor were dichotomous variables. When the prognostic factor was reported as continuous data and healing outcomes were dichotomous, we either performed regression analysis or analysed the impact of healing on protease levels, analysing as the standardised mean difference. When both prognostic factor and outcome were continuous data, we reported correlation coefficients or calculated them from individual participant data.\nWe displayed all results on forest plots to give an overall visual representation. We planned to conduct meta-analyses where this was appropriate, otherwise we summarised narratively.\nMain results\nWe included 19 studies comprising 21 cohorts involving 646 participants. Only 11 studies (13 cohorts, 522 participants) had data available for analysis. Of these, five were prospective cohort studies, four were RCTs and two had a type of case-control design. Follow-up time ranged from four to 36 weeks. Studies covered 10 different matrix metalloproteases (MMPs) and two serine proteases (human neutrophil elastase and urokinase-type plasminogen activators). Two studies recorded complete healing as an outcome; other studies recorded partial healing measures. There was clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies; for example, in the definition of healing, the type of protease and its measurement, the distribution of active and bound protease species, the types of treatment and the reporting of results. Therefore, meta-analysis was not performed. No study had conducted multivariable analyses and all included evidence was of very low certainty because of the lack of adjustment for confounders, the high risk of bias for all studies except one, imprecision around the measures of association and inconsistency in the direction of association. Collectively the research indicated complete uncertainty as to the association between protease activity and VLU healing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review identified very low validity evidence regarding any association between protease activity and VLU healing and there is complete uncertainty regarding the relationship. The review offers information for both future research and systematic review methodology.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out if there is a link between different levels of protease in venous leg ulcers (open skin wounds on the lower leg caused by problems with the way blood flows through the veins) now and the healing of wounds at some time in the future. Protease is an enzyme, a chemical naturally produced by the body that breaks down proteins and which may affect wound healing. We wanted to know whether having higher protease levels meant that wounds were less likely to heal or to heal more slowly. If so, this could help find the most useful treatments for each person with a leg ulcer. Review authors from Cochrane collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found 19 studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6338
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDislocation following hip replacement is associated with significant morbidity and functional cost. The cause is usually multifactorial. A variety of treatment options are available which can broadly be classified into operative and non-operative.\nObjectives\nTo determine the best methods of treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement.\nSearch methods\nThe following databases were searched until August 2006: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Health Technology Assessment database (HTA), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN), and MetaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing operative and non-operative treatments for recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent reviewers applied the inclusion criteria to identified studies.\nMain results\nSearches identified 269 studies. None fulfilled the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe authors invite researchers to perform RCTs comparing different treatment options for recurrent dislocation of the hip. The heterogeneity of the population and variety of underlying causes would favour a multi-centre study to achieve an adequate sample size.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the treatments for dislocation of the hip after Total Hip Replacement surgery?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In total hip replacement surgery, the whole hip joint can be replaced by an artificial joint or hip. About 3 out of 100 people who have this surgery will dislocate their hip. Dislocating a hip causes much pain and other problems. There are many ways to fix a dislocated hip. Usually, the first time a dislocation occurs the hip is put into a cast or brace. But repeated dislocations usually need to be fixed with surgery. Unfortunately, the causes for dislocation are many and some are not known making it difficult to know the best way to fix it."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6339
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIntermittent claudication (IC) is a symptom of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Pentoxifylline, one of many drugs used to treat IC, acts by decreasing blood viscosity, improving erythrocyte flexibility, and promoting microcirculatory flow and tissue oxygen concentration. Many studies have evaluated the efficacy of pentoxifylline in treating people with PAD, but results of these studies are variable. This is the second update of a review first published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of pentoxifylline in improving the walking capacity (i.e. pain-free walking distance and total (absolute, maximum) walking distance) of people with stable intermittent claudication, Fontaine stage II.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 28 January 2020. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pentoxifylline versus placebo or any other pharmacological intervention in people with IC Fontaine stage II.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies, matched data and resolved disagreements by discussion. Review authors assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and collected results related to the outcomes of interest, pain-free walking distance (PFWD), total walking distance (TWD), ankle-brachial pressure index (ABI), quality of life (QoL) and side effects. Comparison of studies was based on duration and dose of pentoxifylline. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified no new eligible studies for this update. This review includes 24 studies with 3377 participants. Seventeen studies compared pentoxifylline versus placebo. The seven remaining studies compared pentoxifylline with flunarizine (one study), aspirin (one study), Gingko biloba extract (one study), nylidrin hydrochloride (one study), prostaglandin E1 (two studies), and buflomedil and nifedipine (one study). Risk of bias for the individual studies was generally unclear because there was a lack of methodological reporting for many of the included studies, especially regarding randomisation and allocation methods. Most included studies did not provide adequate information to allow selective reporting to be judged and did not report blinding of assessors. Heterogeneity between included studies was considerable with regards to multiple variables, including duration of treatment, dose of pentoxifylline, baseline walking distance and participant characteristics; therefore, pooled analysis for comparisons which included more than one study, was not possible.\nPentoxifylline compared to placebo\nOf 17 studies comparing pentoxifylline with placebo, 11 reported PFWD and 14 reported TWD; the difference in percentage improvement in PFWD for pentoxifylline over placebo ranged from –33.8% to 73.9% and in TWD ranged from 1.2% to 155.9%. It was not possible to pool the data of the studies because data were insufficient and findings from individual trials were unclear. Most included studies suggested a possible improvement in PFWD and TWD for pentoxifylline over placebo (both low-certainty evidence).\nThe five studies which evaluated pre-exercise ABI comparing pentoxifylline and placebo found no evidence of a difference (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of the three studies that evaluated QoL between people who received pentoxifylline and placebo were larger studies that used validated QoL tools and generally found no evidence of a difference between groups. One small, short-term study, which did not specify which QoL tool was used, reported improved QoL in the pentoxifylline group (moderate-certainty evidence). Pentoxifylline generally was well tolerated; the most commonly reported side effects consisted of gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea (low-certainty evidence).\nCertainty of the evidence from this review was low or moderate, with downgrading due to risk of bias concerns, inconsistencies between studies and the inability to evaluate imprecision because meta-analysis could not be undertaken.\nThe seven remaining studies compared pentoxifylline with either flunarizine, aspirin, Gingko biloba extract, nylidrin hydrochloride, prostaglandin E1, or buflomedil and nifedipine; data were too limited to allow any meaningful conclusions to be made.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of high-certainty evidence for the effects of pentoxifylline compared to placebo, or other treatments, for IC. There is low-certainty evidence that pentoxifylline may improve PFWD and TWD compared to placebo, but no evidence of a benefit to ABI or QoL (moderate-certainty evidence). Pentoxifylline was reported to be generally well tolerated (low-certainty evidence). Given the large degree of heterogeneity between the studies, the role of pentoxifylline for people with IC Fontaine class II remains uncertain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why we did this Cochrane Review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Pentoxifylline is a medicine taken orally (by mouth) that makes the blood less thick and sticky. This helps blood to flow more easily through small vessels such as arteries, and lets more oxygen reach the muscles. Pentoxifylline is licensed for treating intermittent claudication, although more evidence of its benefits is needed before its use is recommended in treatment guidelines."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6340
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPersistent feelings of fatigue (or subjective fatigue), which may be experienced in the absence of physiological factors, affect many people with peripheral neuropathy. A variety of interventions for subjective fatigue are available, but little is known about their efficacy or the likelihood of any adverse effects for people with peripheral neuropathy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of drugs and physical, psychological or behavioural interventions for fatigue in adults or children with peripheral neuropathy.\nSearch methods\nOn 5 November 2013, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, LILACS and AMED. We also searched reference lists of all studies identified for inclusion and relevant reviews, and contacted the authors of included studies and known experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished data. We also searched trials registries for ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any form of intervention for fatigue management in adults with peripheral neuropathy with placebo, no intervention or an alternative form of intervention for fatigue. Interventions considered included drugs, pacing and grading of physical activity, general or specific exercise, compensatory strategies such as orthotics, relaxation, counselling, cognitive and educational strategies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted study data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse events from the included trials.\nMain results\nThe review includes three trials, which were all at low risk of bias, involving 530 people with peripheral neuropathy. The effects of amantadine from one randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial comparing amantadine with placebo for the treatment of fatigue in 80 people with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) were uncertain for the proportion of people achieving a favourable outcome six weeks post-intervention (odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.35, N = 74, P = 0.16). We assessed the quality of this evidence as low. Two parallel-group randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trials comparing the effects of two doses of ascorbic acid with placebo for reducing fatigue in adults with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A) showed that the effects of ascorbic acid at either dose are probably small (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.12 (95% CI -0.32 to 0.08, n = 404, P = 0.25)) for change in fatigue after 12 to 24 months (moderate quality evidence). Neither ascorbic acid study measured fatigue at four to 12 weeks, which was our primary outcome measure. No serious adverse events were reported with amantadine. Serious adverse events were reported in the trials of ascorbic acid. However,risk of serious adverse events was similar with ascorbic acid and placebo.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOne small imprecise study in people with GBS showed uncertain effects of amantadine on fatigue. In two studies in people with CMT1A there is moderate-quality evidence that ascorbic acid has little meaningful benefit on fatigue. Information about adverse effects was limited, although both treatments appear to be well tolerated and safe in these conditions.\nThere was no evidence available from RCTs to evaluate the effect of other drugs or other interventions for fatigue in either GBS, CMT1A or other causes of peripheral neuropathy. The cost effectiveness of different interventions should also be considered in future randomised clinical trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of amantadine when compared with an inactive treatment (placebo) for fatigue. and there were no major unwanted effects. We found evidence that ascorbic acid probably has little meaningful benefit for fatigue. No major unwanted effects were identified, but the trials were small. We assessed the quality of this evidence as moderate because the results were imprecise, which means they do not rule out the possibility that the drugs could have an effect. We found no evidence from RCTs on other medicines or treatments for fatigue in peripheral neuropathy.\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of amantadine for fatigue in GBS and ascorbic acid for fatigue in CMT1A. More high-quality studies are needed to provide evidence on which to base management of feelings of fatigue in peripheral neuropathy. The cost effectiveness of different interventions should also be considered in future RCTs.\nThe evidence in this review is current to November 2013."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6341
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.\nSearch methods\nFor this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.\nrTMS\nMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).\nCES\nFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).\ntDCS\nAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).\nAdverse events\nAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "rTMS applied to the motor cortex may lead to small, short-term reductions in pain but these effects are not likely to be clinically important. tDCS may reduce pain when compared with sham but for rTMS and tDCS our estimates of benefit are likely to be exaggerated by the small number of participants in each of the studies and limitations in the way the studies were conducted. Low- or very low-quality evidence suggests that low-frequency rTMS and rTMS that is applied to prefrontal areas of the brain are not effective. Low-quality evidence does not suggest that CES is an effective treatment for chronic pain. For all forms of stimulation the evidence is not conclusive and there is substantial uncertainty about the possible benefits and harms of the treatment. Of the studies that clearly reported side effects, short-lived and minor side effects such as headache, nausea and skin irritation were usually reported both with real and sham stimulation. Two cases of seizure were reported following real rTMS. Our conclusions for rTMS, CES, tDCS, and RINCE have not changed substantially in this update."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6342
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is a second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in Issue 2, 2009. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological agent, based on delivering low voltage electrical currents to the skin. TENS is used by people to treat a variety of pain conditions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic effectiveness of TENS, as a sole treatment, for acute pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 3 December 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; and AMED. We also checked the reference lists of included trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with acute pain (< 12 weeks) if they examined TENS given as a sole treatment and assessed pain with subjective pain scales. Trials were eligible if they compared TENS to placebo TENS, no treatment controls, pharmacological interventions or non-pharmacological interventions. We excluded trials on experimental pain, case reports, clinical observations, letters, abstracts or reviews. Also we excluded trials investigating the effect of TENS on pain during childbirth (labour), primary dysmenorrhoea or dental procedures. Studies where TENS was given with another treatment as part of the formal trial design were excluded. We did not restrict any articles based on language of publication.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility and carried out study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and analyses of data. We extracted data on the following: types of participants and pain condition, trial design and methods, treatment parameters, adverse effects, and outcome measures. We contacted trial authors for additional information if necessary.\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials in the original review (2009) and included no further trials in the first update (2011). An additional seven new trials met the inclusion criteria in this second update. In total, we included 19 RCTs involving 1346 participants at entry, with 11 trials awaiting classification either because the full text was unavailable or information in the full text failed to clarify eligibility. We excluded most trials because TENS was given in combination with another treatment as part of the formal study design or TENS was not delivered using appropriate TENS technique. The types of acute pain included in this Cochrane Review were procedural pain, e.g. cervical laser treatment, venepuncture, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and non-procedural pain, e.g. postpartum uterine contractions and rib fractures. We pooled data for pain intensity for six trials (seven comparisons) comparing TENS with placebo but the I2 statistic suggested substantial heterogeneity. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 100 mm) was -24.62 mm (95% CI -31.79 to -17.46) in favour of TENS. Data for the proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% reduction in pain was pooled for four trials (seven comparisons) and relative risk was 3.91 (95% CI 2.42 to 6.32) in favour of TENS over placebo. We pooled data for pain intensity from five trials (seven comparisons) but the I2 statistic suggested considerable heterogeneity. MD was -19.05 mm (95% CI -27.30 to -10.79) in favour of TENS using a random-effects model. It was not possible to pool other data. There was a high risk of bias associated with inadequate sample sizes in treatment arms and unsuccessful blinding of treatment interventions. Seven trials reported minor adverse effects, such as mild erythema and itching underneath the electrodes and participants disliking TENS sensation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis Cochrane Review update includes seven new trials, in addition to the 12 trials reviewed in the first update in 2011. The analysis provides tentative evidence that TENS reduces pain intensity over and above that seen with placebo (no current) TENS when administered as a stand-alone treatment for acute pain in adults. The high risk of bias associated with inadequate sample sizes in treatment arms and unsuccessful blinding of treatment interventions makes definitive conclusions impossible. There was incomplete reporting of treatment in many reports making replication of trials impossible.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 19 clinical trials published up to 3 December 2014, which examined 1346 people. The trials administered TENS to produce a strong non painful 'tingling' sensation at the site of acute pain. The trials assessed TENS for cervical laser treatment, venepuncture, sigmoidoscopy, rib fractures and uterine contractions after childbirth. We did not include trials that assessed TENS for pain associated with childbirth, dental procedures and menstruation because they have been the subject of other Cochrane Reviews. Eleven trials are awaiting classification."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6343
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStudies consistently show a relationship between social disadvantage and low birthweight. Many countries have programmes offering special assistance to women thought to be at risk for giving birth to a low birthweight infant. These programmes, collectively referred to in this review as additional social support, may include emotional support, which gives a person a feeling of being loved and cared for, tangible/instrumental support, in the form of direct assistance/home visits, and informational support, through the provision of advice, guidance and counselling. The programmes may be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of health professionals, specially trained lay workers, or a combination of lay and professional workers. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and updated in 2010.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to assess the effects of programmes offering additional social support (emotional, instrumental/tangible and informational) compared with routine care, for pregnant women believed to be at high risk for giving birth to babies that are either preterm (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or weigh less than 2500 g, or both, at birth. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the effectiveness of support was mediated by timing of onset (early versus later in pregnancy) or type of provider (healthcare professional or lay person).\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 5 February 2018, and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of additional social support during at-risk pregnancy by either a professional (social worker, midwife, or nurse) or specially trained lay person, compared to routine care. We defined additional social support as some form of emotional support (e.g. caring, empathy, trust), tangible/instrumental support (e.g. transportation to clinic appointments, home visits complemented with phone calls, help with household responsibilities) or informational support (advice and counselling about nutrition, rest, stress management, use of alcohol/recreational drugs).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThis updated review includes a total of 25 studies, with outcome data for 11,246 mothers and babies enrolled in 21 studies. We assessed the overall risk of bias of included studies to be low or unclear, mainly because of limited reporting or uncertainty in how randomisation was generated or concealed (which led us to downgrade the quality of most outcomes to moderate), and the impracticability of blinding participants.\nWhen compared with routine care, programmes offering additional social support for at-risk pregnant women may slightly reduce the number of babies born with a birthweight less than 2500 g from 127 per 1000 to 120 per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.04; 16 studies, n = 11,770; moderate-quality evidence), and the number of babies born with a gestational age less than 37 weeks at birth from 128 per 1000 to 117 per 1000 (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01, 14 studies, n = 12,282; moderate-quality evidence), though the confidence intervals for the pooled effect for both of these outcomes just crossed the line of no effect, suggesting any effect is not large. There may be little or no difference between interventions for stillbirth/neonatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.41; 15 studies, n = 12,091; low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes of moderate quality suggested that there is probably a reduction in caesarean section (from 215 per 1000 to 194 per 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; 15 studies, n = 9550), a reduction in the number of antenatal hospital admissions per participant (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91; 4 studies; n = 787), and a reduction in the mean number of hospitalisation episodes (mean difference −0.05, 95% CI −0.06 to −0.04; 1 study, n = 1525) in the social support group, compared to the controls.\nPostnatal depression and women's satisfaction were reported in different ways in the studies that considered these outcomes and so we could not include data in a meta-analysis. In one study postnatal depression appeared to be slightly lower in the support group in women who screened positively on the Edinbugh Postnatal Depression Scale at eight to 12 weeks postnatally (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.01; 1 study, n = 1008; moderate-quality evidence). In another study, again postnatal depression appeared to be slightly lower in the support group and this was a self-report measure assessed at six weeks postnatally (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; 1 study, n = 458; low-quality evidence). A higher proportion of women in one study reported that their prenatal care was very helpful in the supported group (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.30; 1 study, n = 223; moderate-quality evidence), although in another study results were similar. Another study assessed satisfaction with prenatal care as being \"not good\" in 51 of 945 in the additional support group, compared with 45 of 942 in the usual care group.\nNo studies considered long-term morbidity for the infant. No single outcome was reported in all studies. Subgroup analysis demonstrated consistency of effect when the support was provided by a healthcare professional or a trained lay worker.\nThe descriptions of the additional social support were generally consistent across all studies and included emotional support, tangible support such as home visits, and informational support.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPregnant women need the support of caring family members, friends, and health professionals. While programmes that offer additional social support during pregnancy are unlikely to have a large impact on the proportion of low birthweight babies or birth before 37 weeks' gestation and no impact on stillbirth or neonatal death, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of caesarean birth and antenatal hospital admission.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Although programmes that offer additional social support during pregnancy are unlikely to prevent the pregnancy from resulting in a low birthweight or early birth, before 37 weeks of pregnancy, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of antenatal hospital admissions and the need for caesarean births.\nAdditional social support is not powerful enough to improve the outcomes of the pregnancy during which it is provided, as measured by the outcomes considered in this review. The factors contributing to deprivation require social change in order to bring about improvements in health for mothers and their newborn babies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6344
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA promising approach to the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure is the use of stem cells. The last decade has seen a plethora of randomised controlled trials developed worldwide, which have generated conflicting results.\nObjectives\nThe critical evaluation of clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and four ongoing trial databases for relevant trials up to 14 December 2015.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing autologous adult stem/progenitor cells with no cells in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. We included co-interventions, such as primary angioplasty, surgery, or administration of stem cell mobilising agents, when administered to treatment and control arms equally.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and explored substantial heterogeneity (I2 greater than 50%) through subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro), excluding studies with a high or unclear risk of selection bias. We focused our summary of findings on long-term follow-up of mortality, morbidity outcomes, and left ventricular ejection fraction measured by magnetic resonance imaging.\nMain results\nWe included 38 randomised controlled trials involving 1907 participants (1114 cell therapy, 793 controls) in this review update. Twenty-three trials were at high or unclear risk of selection bias. Other sources of potential bias included lack of blinding of participants (12 trials) and full or partial commercial sponsorship (13 trials).\nCell therapy reduced the incidence of long-term mortality (≥ 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.87; participants = 491; studies = 9; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Periprocedural adverse events associated with the mapping or cell/placebo injection procedure were infrequent. Cell therapy was also associated with a long-term reduction in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97; participants = 345; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and incidence of arrhythmias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.99; participants = 82; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). However, we found no evidence that cell therapy affects the risk of rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.09; participants = 375; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) or composite incidence of mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and/or rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.08; participants = 141; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence), or long-term left ventricular ejection fraction when measured by magnetic resonance imaging (mean difference -1.60, 95% CI -8.70 to 5.50; participants = 25; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review and meta-analysis found low-quality evidence that treatment with bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells reduces mortality and improves left ventricular ejection fraction over short- and long-term follow-up and may reduce the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were generally low, leading to a lack of precision.\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 adult stem/progenitor cells derived from bone marrow safe and effective as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease and heart failure?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6345
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTreament-related diarrhoea is one of the most common and troublesome adverse effects related to chemotherapy or radiotherapy in people with cancer. Its reported incidence has been as high as 50% to 80%. Severe treatment-related diarrhoea can lead to fluid and electrolyte losses and nutritional deficiencies and could adversely affect quality of life (QoL). It is also associated with increased risk of infection in people with neutropenia due to anticancer therapy and often leads to treatment delays, dose reductions, or treatment discontinuation. Probiotics may be effective in preventing or treating chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced diarrhoea.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and side effects of probiotics used alone or combined with other agents for prevention or treatment of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related diarrhoea in people with cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to July week 2, 2017), and Embase (1980 to 2017, week 30). We also searched prospective clinical trial registers and the reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of probiotics for prevention or treatment of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related diarrhoea in people with cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used random-effects models for all meta-analyses. If meta-analysis was not possible, we summarised the results narratively.\nMain results\nWe included 12 studies involving 1554 participants. Eleven studies were prevention studies, of which seven compared probiotics with placebo (887 participants), one compared two doses of probiotics with each other and with placebo (246 participants), and three compared probiotics with another active agent (216 participants).The remaining study assessed the effectiveness of probiotics compared with placebo for treatment of radiotherapy-related diarrhoea (205 participants).\nFor prevention of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy)-induced diarrhoea, review authors identified five heterogeneous placebo-controlled studies (with 926 participants analysed). Owing to heterogeneity, we could not carry out a meta-analysis, except for two outcomes. For occurrence of any diarrhoea, risk ratios (RRs) ranged from 0.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.47) to 1.0 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06) (three studies; low-certainty evidence). A beneficial effect of probiotics on quality of life could neither be demonstrated nor refuted (two studies; low-certainty evidence). For occurrence of grade 2 or higher diarrhoea, the pooled RR was 0.75 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.03; four studies; 420 participants; low-certainty evidence), and for grade 3 or higher diarrhoea, RRs ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.23) to 1.24 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.08) (three studies; low-certainty evidence). For probiotic users, time to rescue medication was 36 hours longer in one study (95% CI 34.7 to 37.3), but another study reported no difference (moderate-certainty evidence). For the need for rescue medication, the pooled RR was 0.50 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.66; three studies; 194 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported major differences between groups with respect to adverse effects. Although not mentioned explicitly, no studies reported deaths, except one in which one participant in the probiotics group died of myocardial infarction after three sessions of radiotherapy.\nThree placebo-controlled studies, with 128 analysed participants, addressed prevention of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea. For occurrence of any diarrhoea, the pooled RR was 0.59 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.96; two studies; 106 participants; low-certainty evidence). For all other outcomes, a beneficial effect of probiotics could be neither demonstrated nor refuted (one to two studies; 46 to 106 participants; all low-certainty evidence). Studies did not address quality of life nor time to rescue medication.\nThree studies compared probiotics with another intervention in 213 participants treated with radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy). One very small study (21 participants) reported less diarrhoea six weeks after treatment when dietary counselling was provided (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.81; very low-certainty evidence). In another study (148 participants), grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea occurred less often in the probiotics group than in the control group (guar gum containing nutritional supplement) (odds ratio (OR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence), and two studies (63 participants) found less need for rescue medication of probiotics versus another active treatment (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not address quality of life nor time to rescue medication.\nOne placebo-controlled study with 205 participants addressed treatment for radiotherapy-induced diarrhoea and could not demonstrate or refute a beneficial effect of probiotics on average diarrhoea grade, time to rescue medication for diarrhoea (13 hours longer in the probiotics group; 95% CI -0.9 to 26.9 hours), or need for rescue medication (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.03; moderate-certainty evidence). This study did not address quality of life.\nNo studies reported serious adverse events or diarrhoea-related deaths.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review presents limited low- or very low-certainty evidence supporting the effects of probiotics for prevention and treatment of diarrhoea related to radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone, need for rescue medication, or occurrence of adverse events. All studies were underpowered and heterogeneous. Severe side effects were absent from all studies.\nRobust evidence on this topic must be provided by future methodologically well-designed trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The quality (certainty) of the evidence in prevention studies was low to very low. For the only study that assessed the effects of probiotics on treatment for diarrhoea, the certainty of the evidence was moderate."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6346
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute asthma in children can be life-threatening and must be treated promptly in the emergency setting. Intravenous magnesium sulfate is recommended by various guidelines for cases of acute asthma that have not responded to first-line treatment with bronchodilators and steroids. The treatment has recently been shown to reduce the need for hospital admission for adults compared with placebo, but it is unclear whether it is equally effective for children.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous magnesium sulfate (IV MgSO4) in children treated for acute asthma in the emergency department (ED).\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies by searching the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register up to 23 February 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted study authors to ask for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of children treated in the ED for exacerbations of asthma if they compared any dose of IV MgSO4 with placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened the results of the search and independently extracted data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements through discussion and contacted study authors in cases of missing data and other uncertainties relating to the studies.\nWe analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios and continuous data as mean differences, both using fixed-effect models. We assessed each study for risk of bias and rated the quality of evidence for each outcome with GRADE and presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table. There was insufficient evidence to conduct the planned subgroup analyses.\nMain results\nFive studies (182 children) met the inclusion criteria, and four contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. The included studies were overall at low risk of bias, but our confidence in the evidence was generally low, mainly due to the small sample sizes. Treatment with IV MgSO4 reduced the odds of admission to hospital by 68% (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.74; children = 115; studies = 3; I2 = 63%). This result was based on data from just three studies including 115 children. Meta-analysis for the secondary outcomes was extremely limited by paucity of data. We performed meta-analysis for the outcome 'return to the emergency department within 48 hours', which showed a very imprecise effect estimate that was not statistically significant (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.30; children = 85; studies = 2; I2 = 0%). Side effects and adverse events were not consistently reported and meta-analysis was not possible, however few side effects or adverse events were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIV MgSO4 may reduce the need for hospital admission in children presenting to the ED with moderate to severe exacerbations of asthma, but the evidence is extremely limited by the number and size of studies. Few side effects of the treatment were reported, but the data were extremely limited.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Fewer children who had an infusion of MgSO4 needed to be admitted to hospital compared with placebo. In fact, for every five children treated with the MgSO4, one admission to hospital was prevented. However, the included studies were small, with only 115 children in the main analysis, and the results did vary, so we cannot be absolutely sure of the benefits and harms. As there were so few studies, we also could not tell whether the reduction in hospital admissions was associated with age, severity of the asthma exacerbation, or whether it made a difference what other treatments were given. There were no reports of harm when the children received MgSO4. The review therefore supports the use of MgSO4 in children, however it must be noted that the evidence for its use is very weak."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6347
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHereditary ataxias are a heterogeneous group of disorders resulting in progressive inco-ordination. Swallowing impairment, also known as dysphagia, is a common and potentially life threatening sequel of disease progression. The incidence and nature of dysphagia in these conditions is largely unknown. The loss of an effective and safe swallow can dramatically affect the health and well-being of an individual. Remediation of difficulties of eating and drinking is an important goal in the clinical care of people with hereditary ataxia.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for swallowing impairment (dysphagia) in people with hereditary ataxias.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, and the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) on 14 September 2015. We also searched Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA), Dissertation Abstracts, and Trials Registries on 24 September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared treatments for hereditary ataxia with placebo or no treatment. We only included studies measuring dysphagia.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors (ES, KJ, MK) independently screened all titles and abstracts. In the event of any disagreement or uncertainty over the inclusion of a particular paper, the review authors planned to meet and reach consensus.\nMain results\nWe identified no RCTs from the 519 titles and abstracts screened. We excluded papers primarily for not including participants with a hereditary ataxia (that is, being focused on other neurological conditions), being theoretical reviews rather than intervention studies, or being neither randomised nor quasi-randomised trials.\nWe identified five papers of various design that described treatment for dysphagia, or improvement to swallow as a by-product of treatment, in people with hereditary ataxia. None of these studies were RCTs or quasi-RCTs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is an absence of any significant evidence supporting the use of any dysphagia intervention in hereditary ataxia. The lack of evidence highlights the critical need for well-controlled treatment trials in the field.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The absence of high quality studies examining the efficacy of treatments for dysphagia in these disorders means than no conclusions can be drawn on the most appropriate treatment of dysphagia and highlights the urgent need for well controlled trials in the field.\nThe evidence is current to September 2015."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6348
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the Cochrane Review last published in 2017. Survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) are at risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) treatments may lower the risk of ischaemic MACE after ICH, but they may increase the risk of bleeding.\nObjectives\nTo determine the overall effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic drugs on MACE and its components for people with ICH.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (5 October 2021). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1948 to October 2021) and Embase Ovid (from 1980 to October 2021). The online registries of clinical trials searched were the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 October 2021). We screened the reference lists of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for additional, potentially relevant RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected RCTs in which participants with ICH of any age were allocated to a class of antithrombotic treatment as intervention or comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nIn accordance with standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, two review authors assessed each selected RCT for its risk of bias and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was a composite of MACE, and secondary outcomes included death, individual components of the MACE composite, ICH growth, functional status and cognitive status. We estimated effects using the frequency of outcomes that occurred during the entire duration of follow-up and calculated a risk ratio (RR) for each RCT. We grouped RCTs separately for analysis according to 1) the class(es) of antithrombotic treatment used for the intervention and comparator, and 2) the duration of antithrombotic treatment use (short term versus long term). We pooled the intention-to-treat populations of RCTs using a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis, but used a random-effects model if RCTs differed substantially in their design or there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 75%) in their results. We applied GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified seven new completed RCTs for this update, resulting in the inclusion of a total of nine RCTs based in secondary care, comprising 1491 participants (average age ranged from 61 to 79 years and the proportion of men ranged from 44% to 67%). The proportion of included RCTs at low risk of bias, by category was: random sequence generation (67%), allocation concealment (67%), performance (22%), detection (78%), attrition (89%), and reporting (78%).\nFor starting versus avoiding short-term prophylactic dose anticoagulation after ICH, no RCT reported MACE. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of starting short-term prophylactic dose anticoagulation on death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.70, P = 1.00; 3 RCTs; very low-certainty evidence), venous thromboembolism (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.37, P = 0.49; 4 RCTs; very low-certainty evidence), ICH (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.38, P = 0.11; 2 RCTs; very low-certainty evidence), and independent functional status (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.25, P = 0.15; 1 RCT; very low-certainty evidence) over 90 days.\nFor starting versus avoiding long-term therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation after ICH, starting long-term therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation probably reduces MACE (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.94, P = 0.02; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably reduces all major occlusive vascular events (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.53, P = 0.0002; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably results in little to no difference in death (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.78, P = 0.86; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), probably increases intracranial haemorrhage (RR 2.43, 95% CI 0.88 to 6.73, P = 0.09; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in independent functional status (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.24, P = 0.87; 2 RCTs; low-certainty evidence) over one to three years.\nFor starting versus avoiding long-term antiplatelet therapy after ICH, the evidence is uncertain about the effects of starting long-term antiplatelet therapy on MACE (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22, P = 0.46; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), death (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.53, P = 0.66; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), all major occlusive vascular events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.55, P = 0.90; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), ICH (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.03, P = 0.06; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence) and independent functional status (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18, P = 0.67; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence) over a median follow-up of two years.\nFor adults within 180 days of non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack and a clinical history of prior ICH, there was no evidence of an effect of long-term cilostazol compared to aspirin on MACE (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.40, P = 0.34; subgroup of 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence), death (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.91, P = 0.37; subgroup of 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence), or ICH (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.69, P = 0.70; subgroup of 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence) over a median follow-up of 1.8 years; all major occlusive vascular events and functional status were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not identify beneficial or hazardous effects of short-term prophylactic dose parenteral anticoagulation and long-term oral antiplatelet therapy after ICH on important outcomes. Although there was a significant reduction in MACE and all major occlusive vascular events after long-term treatment with therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation after ICH, the pooled estimates were imprecise, the certainty of evidence was only moderate, and effects on other important outcomes were uncertain. Large RCTs with a low risk of bias are required to resolve the ongoing dilemmas about antithrombotic treatment after ICH.\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 benefits and risks of drugs used to prevent clots (known as 'antithrombotic drugs') in the short term and long term after a stroke due to bleeding in the brain (known as 'brain haemorrhage')?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6349
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is a serious disorder characterised by persistent postexertional fatigue and substantial symptoms related to cognitive, immune and autonomous dysfunction. There is no specific diagnostic test, therefore diagnostic criteria are used to diagnose CFS. The prevalence of CFS varies by type of diagnostic criteria used. Existing treatment strategies primarily aim to relieve symptoms and improve function. One treatment option is exercise therapy.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to determine the effects of exercise therapy for adults with CFS compared with any other intervention or control on fatigue, adverse outcomes, pain, physical functioning, quality of life, mood disorders, sleep, self-perceived changes in overall health, health service resources use and dropout.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group controlled trials register, CENTRAL, and SPORTDiscus up to May 2014, using a comprehensive list of free-text terms for CFS and exercise. We located unpublished and ongoing studies through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to May 2014. We screened reference lists of retrieved articles and contacted experts in the field for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) about adults with a primary diagnosis of CFS, from all diagnostic criteria, who were able to participate in exercise therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessments and data extraction. We combined continuous measures of outcomes using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). To facilitate interpretation of SMDs, we re-expressed SMD estimates as MDs on more common measurement scales. We combined dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs with data from 1518 participants.\nExercise therapy lasted from 12 weeks to 26 weeks. The studies measured effect at the end of the treatment and at long-term follow-up, after 50 weeks or 72 weeks.\nSeven studies used aerobic exercise therapies such as walking, swimming, cycling or dancing, provided at mixed levels in terms of intensity of the aerobic exercise from very low to quite rigorous, and one study used anaerobic exercise. Control groups consisted of passive control, including treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility (eight studies); cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (two studies); cognitive therapy (one study); supportive listening (one study); pacing (one study); pharmacological treatment (one study) and combination treatment (one study).\nMost studies had a low risk of selection bias. All had a high risk of performance and detection bias.\nExercise therapy compared with 'passive' control\nExercise therapy probably reduces fatigue at end of treatment (SMD −0.66, 95% CI −1.01 to −0.31; 7 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; re-expressed MD −3.4, 95% CI −5.3 to −1.6; scale 0 to 33). We are uncertain if fatigue is reduced in the long term because the certainty of the evidence is very low (SMD −0.62, 95 % CI −1.32 to 0.07; 4 studies, 670 participants; re-expressed MD −3.2, 95% CI −6.9 to 0.4; scale 0 to 33).\nWe are uncertain about the risk of serious adverse reactions because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.97; 1 study, 319 participants).\nExercise therapy may moderately improve physical functioning at end of treatment, but the long-term effect is uncertain because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Exercise therapy may also slightly improve sleep at end of treatment and at long term. The effect of exercise therapy on pain, quality of life and depression is uncertain because evidence is missing or of very low certainty.\nExercise therapy compared with CBT\nExercise therapy may make little or no difference to fatigue at end of treatment (MD 0.20, 95% CI -1.49 to 1.89; 1 study, 298 participants; low-certainty evidence), or at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.28; 2 studies, 351 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain about the risk of serious adverse reactions because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.96; 1 study, 321 participants).\nThe available evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between exercise therapy and CBT in physical functioning or sleep (low-certainty evidence) and probably little or no difference in the effect on depression (moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if exercise therapy compared to CBT improves quality of life or reduces pain because the evidence is of very low certainty.\nExercise therapy compared with adaptive pacing\nExercise therapy may slightly reduce fatigue at end of treatment (MD −2.00, 95% CI −3.57 to −0.43; scale 0 to 33; 1 study, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at long-term follow-up (MD −2.50, 95% CI −4.16 to −0.84; scale 0 to 33; 1 study, 307 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain about the risk of serious adverse reactions (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.97; 1 study, 319 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe available evidence suggests that exercise therapy may slightly improve physical functioning, depression and sleep compared to adaptive pacing (low-certainty evidence). No studies reported quality of life or pain.\nExercise therapy compared with antidepressants\nWe are uncertain if exercise therapy, alone or in combination with antidepressants, reduces fatigue and depression more than antidepressant alone, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. The one included study did not report on adverse reactions, pain, physical functioning, quality of life, sleep or long-term results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise therapy probably has a positive effect on fatigue in adults with CFS compared to usual care or passive therapies. The evidence regarding adverse effects is uncertain. Due to limited evidence it is difficult to draw conclusions about the comparative effectiveness of CBT, adaptive pacing or other interventions. All studies were conducted with outpatients diagnosed with 1994 criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Oxford criteria, or both. Patients diagnosed using other criteria may experience different effects.\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": "People with chronic fatigue syndrome have long-lasting fatigue, joint pain, headaches, sleep problems, poor concentration and short-term memory. These symptoms cause significant disability and distress. We wanted to find out whether exercise therapy can help people with chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6350
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDysfunctional breathing/hyperventilation syndrome (DB/HVS) is a respiratory disorder, psychologically or physiologically based, involving breathing too deeply and/or too rapidly (hyperventilation) or erratic breathing interspersed with breath-holding or sighing (DB). DB/HVS can result in significant patient morbidity and an array of symptoms including breathlessness, chest tightness, dizziness, tremor and paraesthesia. DB/HVS has an estimated prevalence of 9.5% in the general adult population, however, there is little consensus regarding the most effective management of this patient group.\nObjectives\n1) To determine whether breathing exercises in patients with DB/HVS have beneficial effects as measured by quality of life indices\n2) To determine whether there are any adverse effects of breathing exercises in patients with DB/HVS\nSearch methods\nWe identified trials for consideration using both electronic and manual search strategies. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and four other databases. The latest search was in February 2013.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which breathing exercises, or a combined intervention including breathing exercises as a key component, were compared with either no treatment or another therapy that did not include breathing exercises in patients with DB/HVS. Observational studies, case studies and studies utilising a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion.\nWe considered any type of breathing exercise for inclusion in this review, such as breathing control, diaphragmatic breathing, yoga breathing, Buteyko breathing, biofeedback-guided breathing modification, yawn/sigh suppression. Programs where exercises were either supervised or unsupervised were eligible as were relaxation techniques and acute-episode management, as long as it was clear that breathing exercises were a key component of the intervention.\nWe excluded any intervention without breathing exercises or where breathing exercises were not key to the intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently checked search results for eligible studies, assessed all studies that appeared to meet the selection criteria and extracted data. We used standard procedures recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included a single RCT assessed at unclear risk of bias, which compared relaxation therapy (n = 15) versus relaxation therapy and breathing exercises (n = 15) and a no therapy control group (n = 15).\nQuality of life was not an outcome measure in this RCT, and no numerical data or statistical analysis were presented in this paper. A significant reduction in the frequency and severity of hyperventilation attacks in the breathing exercise group compared with the control group was reported. In addition, a significant difference in frequency and severity of hyperventilation attacks between the breathing and relaxation group was reported. However, no information could be extracted from the paper regarding the size of the treatment effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this systematic review are unable to inform clinical practice, based on the inclusion of only one small, poorly reported RCT. There is no credible evidence regarding the effectiveness of breathing exercises for the clinical symptoms of DB/HVS. It is currently unknown whether these interventions offer any added value in this patient group or whether specific types of breathing exercise demonstrate superiority over others. Given that breathing exercises are frequently used to treat DB/HVS, there is an urgent need for further well designed clinical trials in this area. Future trials should conform to the CONSORT statement for standards of reporting and use appropriate, validated outcome measures. Trial reports should also ensure full disclosure of data for all important clinical outcomes.\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": "Only one study met the criteria for inclusion in this review, in which participants also received relaxation therapy. This study had a small number of participants and provided very little detail as to how it was undertaken. Although the trial report suggested that breathing exercises may be beneficial in the treatment of this particular patient group no numerical data were presented so we could not be sure. No reliable conclusions can be drawn from this small, isolated study.\nThis Cochrane plain language summary is up to date as of February 2013."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6351
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDuloxetine is a balanced serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor licensed for the treatment of major depressive disorders, urinary stress incontinence and the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A number of trials have been conducted to investigate the use of duloxetine in neuropathic and nociceptive painful conditions. This is the first update of a review first published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy and different types of chronic pain.\nSearch methods\nOn 19th November 2013, we searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials in April 2013. We also searched the reference lists of identified publications for trials of duloxetine for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected all randomised or quasi-randomised trials of any formulation of duloxetine, used for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe identified 18 trials, which included 6407 participants. We found 12 of these studies in the literature search for this update. Eight studies included a total of 2728 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy and six studies involved 2249 participants with fibromyalgia. Three studies included participants with depression and painful physical symptoms and one included participants with central neuropathic pain. Studies were mostly at low risk of bias, although significant drop outs, imputation methods and almost every study being performed or sponsored by the drug manufacturer add to the risk of bias in some domains. Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is effective in treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the short term, with a risk ratio (RR) for ≥ 50% pain reduction at 12 weeks of 1.73 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.08). The related NNTB is 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is also effective for fibromyalgia over 12 weeks (RR for ≥ 50% reduction in pain 1.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 21) and over 28 weeks (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.27) as well as for painful physical symptoms in depression (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59; NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 14). There was no effect on central neuropathic pain in a single, small, high quality trial. In all conditions, adverse events were common in both treatment and placebo arms but more common in the treatment arm, with a dose-dependent effect. Most adverse effects were minor, but 12.6% of participants stopped the drug due to adverse effects. Serious adverse events were rare.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is adequate amounts of moderate quality evidence from eight studies performed by the manufacturers of duloxetine that doses of 60 mg and 120 mg daily are efficacious for treating pain in diabetic peripheral neuropathy but lower daily doses are not. Further trials are not required. In fibromyalgia, there is lower quality evidence that duloxetine is effective at similar doses to those used in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and with a similar magnitude of effect. The effect in fibromyalgia may be achieved through a greater improvement in mental symptoms than in somatic physical pain. There is low to moderate quality evidence that pain relief is also achieved in pain associated with depressive symptoms, but the NNTB of 8 in fibromyalgia and depression is not an indication of substantial efficacy. More trials (preferably independent investigator led studies) in these indications are required to reach an optimal information size to make convincing determinations of efficacy.\nMinor side effects are common and more common with duloxetine 60 mg and particularly with 120 mg daily, than 20 mg daily, but serious side effects are rare.\nImproved direct comparisons of duloxetine with other antidepressants and with other drugs, such as pregabalin, that have already been shown to be efficacious in neuropathic pain would be appropriate. Unbiased economic comparisons would further help decision making, but no high quality study includes economic data.\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": "Duloxetine is a drug used to treat depression and urinary urge incontinence (leakage of urine) and it can be also be useful for certain types of pain. Pain can arise spontaneously when there is damage to nerves that carry pain information to the brain (neuropathic pain). When this damage is to nerves outside the spinal cord it is called a peripheral neuropathy. Another type of pain, nociceptive pain, occurs when the nerves sense damage to another tissue (for example, a pinprick in the skin). Some pain is of unclear origin and occurs without apparent nerve or tissue damage. This sort of pain happens, for example, in fibromyalgia. The objective of this review was to assess the benefits and harms of duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy and chronic pain of all sorts."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6352
|
[
{
"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: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the literature until 15 September 2013. We included all adults who underwent elective major abdominal surgery. We included only studies in which the intervention was started postoperatively.\nWe employed the standard methods of the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group for data collection and analysis. A total of 709 participants were included in the 10 selected trials. Considerable differences between studies were noted in the populations studied, duration of treatment and supportive care provided."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6353
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) are managed with a combination of medical therapy, invasive angiography and revascularisation. Specifically, two approaches have evolved: either a 'routine invasive' strategy whereby all patients undergo coronary angiography shortly after admission and, if indicated, coronary revascularisation; or a 'selective invasive' (also referred to as 'conservative') strategy in which medical therapy alone is used initially, with a selection of patients for angiography based upon evidence of persistent myocardial ischaemia. Uncertainty exists as to which strategy provides the best outcomes for these patients. This Cochrane review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2006, to provide a robust comparison of these two strategies in the early management of patients with UA/NSTEMI.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms associated with the following.\n1. A routine invasive versus a conservative or 'selective invasive' strategy for the management of UA/NSTEMI in the stent era.\n2. A routine invasive strategy with and without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists versus a conservative strategy for the management of UA/NSTEMI in the stent era.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases and additional resources up to 25 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE, with no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared invasive with conservative or 'selective invasive' strategies in participants with acute UA/NSTEMI.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened the records and extracted data in duplicate. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we calculated summary estimates of the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary endpoints of all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), combined all-cause death or non-fatal MI, refractory angina and re-hospitalisation. We performed further analysis of included studies based on whether glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists were used routinely. We assessed the heterogeneity of included trials using Pearson χ² (Chi² test) and variance (I² statistic) analysis. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 (Review Manager) to create Summary of findings (SoF) tables.\nMain results\nEight RCTs with a total of 8915 participants (4545 invasive strategies, 4370 conservative strategies) were eligible for inclusion. We included three new studies and 1099 additional participants in this review update. In the all-study analysis, evidence did not show appreciable risk reductions in all-cause mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.18; eight studies, 8915 participants; low quality evidence) and death or non-fatal MI (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.2; seven studies, 7715 participants; low quality evidence) with invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies at six to 12 months follow-up. There was appreciable risk reduction in MI (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00; eight studies, 8915 participants; moderate quality evidence), refractory angina (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.79; five studies, 8287 participants; moderate quality evidence) and re-hospitalisation (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.94; six studies, 6921 participants; moderate quality evidence) with routine invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies also at six to 12 months follow-up.\nEvidence also showed increased risks in bleeding (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.31; six studies, 7584 participants; moderate quality evidence) and procedure-related MI (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.37; five studies, 6380 participants; moderate quality evidence) with routine invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies.\nThe low quality evidence were as a result of serious risk of bias and imprecision in the estimate of effect while moderate quality evidence was only due to serious risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn the all-study analysis, the evidence failed to show appreciable benefit with routine invasive strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation MI compared to conservative strategies in all-cause mortality and death or non-fatal MI at six to 12 months. There was evidence of risk reduction in MI, refractory angina and re-hospitalisation with routine invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies at six to 12 months follow-up. However, routine invasive strategies were associated with a relatively high risk (almost double the risk) of procedure-related MI, and increased risk of bleeding complications. This systematic analysis of published RCTs supports the conclusion that, in patients with UA/NSTEMI, a selectively invasive (conservative) strategy based on clinical risk for recurrent events is the preferred management strategy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included randomised controlled trials that compared routine invasive strategies to conservative strategies in patients with UA and NSTEMI in the stent era. We searched the available literature up to 25 August 2015."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6354
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSensory stimulation via acupuncture has been reported to alter activities of numerous neural systems by activating multiple efferent pathways. Acupuncture, one of the main physical therapies in Traditional Chinese Medicine, has been widely used to treat patients with stroke for over hundreds of years. This is the first update of the Cochrane Review originally published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether acupuncture could reduce the proportion of people with death or dependency, while improving quality of life, after acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched on February 2, 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Ovid (CENTRAL Ovid; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to February 2017), Embase Ovid (1974 to February 2017), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) EBSCO (1982 to February 2017), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED; 1985 to February 2017), China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (1998 to February 2017), and the VIP database (VIP Chinese Science Journal Evaluation Reports; 1989 to February 2017). We also identified relevant trials in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (last searched on Feburuary 20, 2017), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (last searched on April 30, 2017), and Clinicaltrials.gov (last searched on April 30, 2017). In addition, we handsearched the reference lists of systematic reviews and relevant clinical trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of acupuncture started within 30 days from stroke onset compared with placebo or sham acupuncture or open control (no placebo) in people with acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or both. Needling into the skin was required for acupuncture. Comparisons were made versus (1) all controls (open control or sham acupuncture), and (2) sham acupuncture controls.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data independently. We contacted study authors to ask for missing data. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach. We defined the primary outcome as death or dependency at the end of follow-up .\nMain results\nWe included in this updated review 33 RCTs with 3946 participants. Twenty new trials with 2780 participants had been completed since the previous review. Outcome data were available for up to 22 trials (2865 participants) that compared acupuncture with any control (open control or sham acupuncture) but for only six trials (668 participants) that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture control. We downgraded the evidence to low or very low quality because of risk of bias in included studies, inconsistency in the acupuncture intervention and outcome measures, and imprecision in effect estimates.\nWhen compared with any control (11 trials with 1582 participants), findings of lower odds of death or dependency at the end of follow-up and over the long term (≥ three months) in the acupuncture group were uncertain (odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.79; very low-quality evidence; and OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; eight trials with 1436 participants; very low-quality evidence, respectively) and were not confirmed by trials comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.18; low-quality evidence; and OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.12; low-quality evidence, respectively).\nIn trials comparing acupuncture with any control, findings that acupuncture was associated with increases in the global neurological deficit score and in the motor function score were uncertain (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.32; 12 trials with 1086 participants; very low-quality evidence; and SMD 1.08, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.71; 11 trials with 895 participants; very low-quality evidence). These findings were not confirmed in trials comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.57; low-quality evidence; and SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.17; low-quality evidence, respectively).\nTrials comparing acupuncture with any control have reported little or no difference in death or institutional care at the end of follow-up (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.12; five trials with 1120 participants; low-quality evidence), death within the first two weeks (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.55; 18 trials with 1612 participants; low-quality evidence), or death at the end of follow-up (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.58; 22 trials with 2865 participants; low-quality evidence).\nThe incidence of adverse events (eg, pain, dizziness, faint) in the acupuncture arms of open and sham control trials was 6.2% (64/1037 participants), and 1.4% of these (14/1037 participants) discontinued acupuncture. When acupuncture was compared with sham acupuncture, findings for adverse events were uncertain (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.16; five trials with 576 participants; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated review indicates that apparently improved outcomes with acupuncture in acute stroke are confounded by the risk of bias related to use of open controls. Adverse events related to acupuncture were reported to be minor and usually did not result in stopping treatment. Future studies are needed to confirm or refute any effects of acupuncture in acute stroke. Trials should clearly report the method of randomization, concealment of allocation, and whether blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors was achieved, while paying close attention to the effects of acupuncture on long-term functional outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Stroke is a devastating disease with high morbidity and mortality. Acupuncture, one of the main physical therapies in Traditional Chinese Medicine, has been widely used to treat stroke for over hundreds of years in China, but evidence of its effectiveness in stroke rehabilitation is inconsistent."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6355
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAny type of seizure can be observed in Alzheimer's disease. Antiepileptic drugs seem to prevent the recurrence of epileptic seizures in most people with Alzheimer's disease. There are pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease, however there are no current systematic reviews to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of these treatments. This review aims to investigate these different modalities.\nThis is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease (including sporadic Alzheimer's disease and dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease).\nSearch methods\nFor the latest update, on 3 August 2020 we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 31 July 2020). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Cochrane Epilepsy. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings; we also contacted trial authors and pharmaceutical companies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials investigating treatment for epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease, with the primary outcomes of proportion of participants with seizure freedom and proportion of participants experiencing adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality. We performed no meta-analyses due to there being limited available data.\nMain results\nWe included one randomized controlled trial (RCT) on pharmacological interventions; the trial included 95 participants. No studies were found for non-pharmacological interventions. Concerning the proportion of participants with seizure freedom, no significant differences were found for the comparisons of levetiracetam versus lamotrigine (RR) 1.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.71; 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence), levetiracetam versus phenobarbital (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.19; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or lamotrigine versus phenobarbital (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.02; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It seemed that levetiracetam could improve cognition and lamotrigine could relieve depression, while phenobarbital and lamotrigine could worsen cognition, and levetiracetam and phenobarbital could worsen mood. The risk of bias relating to allocation, blinding and selective reporting was unclear. We judged the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to be very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review does not provide sufficient evidence to support levetiracetam, phenobarbital or lamotrigine for the treatment of epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease. Regarding efficacy and tolerability, no significant differences were found between levetiracetam, phenobarbital and lamotrigine.\nLarge RCTs with a double-blind, parallel-group design are required to determine the efficacy and tolerability of treatment for epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The certainty of the evidence for all the outcomes from the study were very low. This means that we are very uncertain about the results and they should be interpreted with caution. Large randomized controlled trials are required to determine how effective and well tolerated treatments are for epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease.\nThe evidence is current to August 2020."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6356
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nClavicle (collarbone) fractures account for around 4% of all fractures. Most (76%) clavicle fractures involve the middle-third section of the clavicle. Treatment of these fractures is usually non-surgical (conservative). Commonly used treatments are arm slings, strapping and figure-of-eight bandages.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of different methods for conservative (non-operative) treatment for acute (treated soon after injury) middle third clavicle fractures in adolescents and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), LILACS (from 1982), trial registers, orthopaedic proceedings and reference lists of articles. We applied no language or publication restrictions. The date of the last search was 5 January 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials testing conservative interventions for treating adolescents and adults with acute middle third clavicle fractures. The primary outcomes were shoulder function or disability, pain and treatment failure.\nData collection and analysis\nFor this update, two review authors selected eligible trials, independently assessed risk of bias and cross-checked data extraction. We calculated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous variables, and mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables. There was very limited pooling of data.\nMain results\nWe included four trials in this review with 416 participants, who were aged 14 years or above. One new trial was included in this update.\nVery low quality evidence was available from three trials (296 participants) that compared the figure-of-eight bandage with an arm sling for treating acute middle third clavicle fractures. The three trials were underpowered and compromised by poor methodology. Shoulder function was assessed in different ways in the three trials (data for 51, 61 and 152 participants); each trial provided very low quality evidence of similar shoulder function in the two groups. Pooled data from two trials (203 participants) showed no clinical difference between groups after two weeks in pain (visual analogue scale: 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain); mean difference (MD) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to 1.21; I² = 74%; very low quality evidence). A third trial (61 participants) provided very low quality evidence based on a non-validated scoring system of more pain and discomfort during the course of treatment in the figure-of-eight group. Treatment failure, measured in terms of subsequent surgery, was not reported in two trials; the third trial (152 participants) reported one participant in the arm sling group had surgery for secondary plexus nerve palsy. There was very low quality evidence from one trial (148 participants) of little difference in time to clinical fracture healing (MD 0.2 weeks, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.51); data from four non-symptomatic non-unions in the figure-of-eight group were not included. The very low evidence quality data for individual adverse outcomes (poor cosmetic appearance; change in allocated treatment due to pain and discomfort, worsened fracture position on healing; shortening > 15 mm; non-symptomatic non-union and permanent pain) did not confirm a difference between the two groups. There was no clear between group difference in the time to return to school or work activities (MD -0.12 weeks, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.45; 176 participants; very low quality evidence).\nModerate quality evidence was available from one trial (120 participants; reporting data for 101 participants), which evaluated therapeutic ultrasound. This trial was at low risk of bias but was underpowered and did not report on shoulder function or quality of life. The trial found no evidence of a difference between low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and placebo in pain, treatment failure (subsequent surgery: 6/52 versus 5/49; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.47), the time to clinical fracture healing (MD -0.32 days, 95% CI -5.85 to 5.21), adverse events (one case of skin irritation was reported in each group) or time to resume previous activities.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence available from randomised controlled trials is insufficient to determine which methods of conservative treatment are the most appropriate for acute middle third clavicle fractures in adolescents and adults. Further research is warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions and quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence from the three studies that compared figure-of-eight bandage with arm sling was very low quality and so we cannot rely on it to draw conclusions about how collarbone fractures should be treated. We considered the evidence from one study that compared therapeutic ultrasound versus sham treatment to be moderate quality as the study was well conducted but it was not big enough to be conclusive.\nOverall, there was not enough evidence to draw conclusions about the best methods of conservative treatment for these fractures."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6357
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous thromboembolism (VTE), which comprises deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the leading cause of preventable death in hospitalised people and the third most common cause of mortality in surgical patients. People undergoing bariatric surgery have the additional risk factor of being overweight. Although VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients is well established, the best way to prevent VTE in those undergoing bariatric surgery is less clear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions (alone or in combination) on venous thromboembolism and other health outcomes in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention or started at a different time point, another pharmacological intervention, no intervention or placebo.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 1 November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in males and females of any age undergoing bariatric surgery comparing pharmacological interventions for VTE (alone or in combination) with the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention started at a different time point, a different pharmacological intervention, no treatment or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. VTE and 2. major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. VTE-related mortality, 3. PE, 4. DVT, 5. adverse effects and 6. quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs with 1045 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all participants.\nFour RCTs (597 participants) compared higher-dose heparin to standard-dose heparin: one of these studies (139 participants) used unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the other three (458 participants) used low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). One study compared heparin versus pentasaccharide (198 participants), and one study compared starting heparin before versus after bariatric surgery (100 participants). One study (150 participants) compared combined mechanical and pharmacological (enoxaparin) prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone. The duration of the interventions ranged from seven to 15 days, and follow-up ranged from 10 to 180 days.\nHigher-dose heparin versus standard-dose heparin\nCompared to standard-dose heparin, higher-dose heparin may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.99; 4 studies, 597 participants) or major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.96; I2 = 8%; 4 studies, 597 participants; low-certainty) in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on all-cause mortality, VTE-related mortality, PE, DVT and adverse events (thrombocytopenia) is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence).\nHeparin versus pentasaccharide\nHeparin compared to a pentasaccharide after bariatric surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants) or DVT (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, PE and mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence).\nHeparin started before versus after the surgical procedure\nStarting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before surgery versus after surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants) or DVT (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, all-cause mortality and VTE-related mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on PE or adverse effects, as the study did not measure these outcomes.\nCombined mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone\nCombining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on major bleeding or morality (effect not estimable), or on PE or adverse events (not measured).\nNo studies measured quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigher-dose heparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism or major bleeding in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to standard-dose heparin.\nHeparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to pentasaccharide. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin compared to pentasaccharide on major bleeding.\nStarting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before bariatric surgery may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to starting heparin after bariatric surgery. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin started before versus after surgery on major bleeding.\nCombining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone. No data are available relating to major bleeding.\nThe certainty of the evidence is limited by small sample sizes, few or no events, and risk of bias concerns. Future trials must be sufficiently large to enable analysis of relevant clinical outcomes, and should standardise the time of treatment and follow-up. They should also address the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets, preferably grouping them according to the type of intervention.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We have little or very little confidence in the evidence because the studies were of low quality. Many participants dropped out from one study, there were a low number of events overall, and most studies had few participants. Larger studies assessing important outcomes (e.g. VTE, major bleeding, death due to any cause, death due to VTE, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, harmful side effects and quality of life) are needed to assess which medicines are more effective and safer and at which dose they should be used."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6358
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEarly childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.\nFace-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.\nThis is an update of a review originally published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.\nMain results\nIn this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.\nAll included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).\nOverall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.\nWe judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).\nLow-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents’ anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents’ experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.\nFace-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.\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 judged the certainty of the evidence to be moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding, but low for all other outcomes. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where studies were judged to have problems with bias from different sources (e.g. the way in which participants were assigned to study groups), where there was a lot of variability in results or imprecise estimates, or where we had misgivings about the choice of outcomes measures."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6359
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy (CIAP) is an insidiously progressive sensory or sensorimotor polyneuropathy that affects elderly people. Although severe disability or handicap does not occur, CIAP reduces quality of life. CIAP is diagnosed in 10% to 25% of people referred for evaluation of polyneuropathy. There is a need to gather and review emerging evidence on treatments, as the number of people affected is likely to increase in ageing populations. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of drug therapy for chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy for reducing disability and ameliorating neurological symptoms and associated impairments, and to assess any adverse effects of treatment.\nSearch methods\nIn July 2016, we searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science. We searched two trials registries for ongoing trials. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and textbooks identified electronically, and we would have contacted authors and other experts in the field to identify additional studies if this seemed useful.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought all randomised or quasi-randomised (alternate or other systematic treatment allocation) trials that examined the effects of any drug therapy in people with CIAP at least one year after the onset of treatment. People with CIAP had to fulfil the following criteria: age 40 years or older, distal sensory or sensorimotor polyneuropathy, absence of systemic or other neurological disease, chronic clinical course not reaching a nadir in less than two months, exclusion of any recognised cause of the polyneuropathy by medical history taking, clinical or laboratory investigations, and electrophysiological studies in agreement with axonal polyneuropathy, without evidence of demyelinating features. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a significant improvement in disability. Secondary outcomes were change in the mean disability score, change in the proportion of participants who make use of walking aids, change in the mean Medical Research Council sum score, degree of pain relief and/or reduction of other positive sensory symptoms, change in the proportion of participants with pain or other positive sensory symptoms, and frequency of adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed the results of the literature search and extracted details of trial methodology and outcome data of all potentially relevant trials.\nMain results\nWe identified 39 studies and assessed them for possible inclusion in the review, but we excluded all of them because of insufficient quality or lack of relevance. We summarised evidence from non-randomised studies in the Discussion.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEven though CIAP has been clearly described and delineated, no adequate randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical treatment trials have been performed. In their absence there is no proven efficacious drug therapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There have not been any randomised trials of drug therapy for CIAP. Future trials will need sensitive outcome measures and long follow-up periods."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6360
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany people with dementia are cared for at home by unpaid informal caregivers, usually family members. Caregivers may experience a range of physical, emotional, financial and social harms, which are often described collectively as caregiver burden. The degree of burden experienced is associated with characteristics of the caregiver, such as gender, and characteristics of the person with dementia, such as dementia stage, and the presence of behavioural problems or neuropsychiatric disturbances. It is a strong predictor of admission to residential care for people with dementia.\nPsychoeducational interventions might prevent or reduce caregiver burden. Overall, they are intended to improve caregivers' knowledge about the disease and its care; to increase caregivers' sense of competence and their ability to cope with difficult situations; to relieve feelings of isolation and allow caregivers to attend to their own emotional and physical needs. These interventions are heterogeneous, varying in their theoretical framework, components, and delivery formats. Interventions that are delivered remotely, using printed materials, telephone or video technologies, may be particularly suitable for caregivers who have difficulty accessing face-to-face services because of their own health problems, poor access to transport, or absence of substitute care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, containment measures in many countries required people to be isolated in their homes, including people with dementia and their family carers. In such circumstances, there is no alternative to remote delivery of interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and acceptability of remotely delivered interventions aiming to reduce burden and improve mood and quality of life of informal caregivers of people with dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases, as well as two international trials registries, on 10 April 2020. We also examined the bibliographies of relevant review papers and published trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials that assessed the remote delivery of structured interventions for informal caregivers who were providing care for people with dementia living at home. Caregivers had to be unpaid adults (relatives or members of the person's community). The interventions could be delivered using printed materials, the telephone, the Internet or a mixture of these, but could not involve any face-to-face contact with professionals. We categorised intervention components as information, training or support. Information interventions included two key elements: (i) they provided standardised information, and (ii) the caregiver played a passive role. Support interventions promoted interaction with other people (professionals or peers). Training interventions trained caregivers in practical skills to manage care. We excluded interventions that were primarily individual psychotherapy.\nOur primary outcomes were caregiver burden, mood, health-related quality of life and dropout for any reason. Secondary outcomes were caregiver knowledge and skills, use of health and social care resources, admission of the person with dementia to institutional care, and quality of life of the person with dementia.\nData collection and analysis\nStudy selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias in included studies were done independently by two review authors. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to describe the interventions. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model to derive estimates of effect size. We used GRADE methods to describe our degree of certainty about effect estimates.\nMain results\nWe included 26 studies in this review (2367 participants). We compared (1) interventions involving training, support or both, with or without information (experimental interventions) with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control (12 studies, 944 participants); and (2) the same experimental interventions with provision of information alone (14 studies, 1423 participants).\nWe downgraded evidence for study limitations and, for some outcomes, for inconsistency between studies. There was a frequent risk of bias from self-rating of subjective outcomes by participants who were not blind to the intervention. Randomisation methods were not always well-reported and there was potential for attrition bias in some studies. Therefore, all evidence was of moderate or low certainty.\nIn the comparison of experimental interventions with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control, we found that the experimental interventions probably have little or no effect on caregiver burden (nine studies, 597 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to 0.23); depressive symptoms (eight studies, 638 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.12); or health-related quality of life (two studies, 311 participants; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). The experimental interventions probably result in little or no difference in dropout for any reason (eight studies, 661 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.53).\nIn the comparison of experimental interventions with a control condition of information alone, we found that experimental interventions may result in a slight reduction in caregiver burden (nine studies, 650 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.04); probably result in a slight improvement in depressive symptoms (11 studies, 1100 participants; SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.06); may result in little or no difference in caregiver health-related quality of life (two studies, 257 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.21); and probably result in an increase in dropouts for any reason (12 studies, 1266 participants; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.20).\nAuthors' conclusions\nRemotely delivered interventions including support, training or both, with or without information, may slightly reduce caregiver burden and improve caregiver depressive symptoms when compared with provision of information alone, but not when compared with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control. They seem to make little or no difference to health-related quality of life. Caregivers receiving training or support were more likely than those receiving information alone to drop out of the studies, which might limit applicability. The efficacy of these interventions may depend on the nature and availability of usual services in the study settings.\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 up to April 2020 for randomised controlled trials that addressed our review questions. We found 12 studies with 944 participants that compared groups of caregivers receiving usual care, or some non-specific contact with researchers, with other groups receiving remotely delivered interventions that involved information with training, support or both. We found another 14 studies with 1423 participants that compared simple information provision with more complex interventions that involved training or support. The interventions lasted an average of 16 weeks. Three studies took place in China; all the others were from North America or Europe. About half used the telephone and about half used the Internet to deliver the interventions."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6361
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe evidence on whether vitamin D supplementation is effective in decreasing cancers is contradictory.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2014. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults who were healthy or were recruited among the general population, or diagnosed with a specific disease. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D₂ (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data independently. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). We considered risk of bias in order to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors.\nMain results\nEighteen randomised trials with 50,623 participants provided data for the analyses. All trials came from high-income countries. Most of the trials had a high risk of bias, mainly for-profit bias. Most trials included elderly community-dwelling women (aged 47 to 97 years). Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of six years. Fourteen trials tested vitamin D₃, one trial tested vitamin D₂, and three trials tested calcitriol supplementation. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1927/25,275 (7.6%) recipients of vitamin D versus 1943/25,348 (7.7%) recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 18 trials; 50,623 participants; moderate quality evidence according to the GRADE instrument). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) of the 18 vitamin D trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. We did not observe substantial differences in the effect of vitamin D on cancer in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared to trials at high risk of bias; of trials with no risk of for-profit bias compared to trials with risk of for-profit bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared to trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D levels below 20 ng/mL at entry compared to trials including participants with vitamin D levels of 20 ng/mL or more at entry; or of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared to trials without calcium. Vitamin D decreased all-cause mortality (1854/24,846 (7.5%) versus 2007/25,020 (8.0%); RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98); P = 0.009; I² = 0%; 15 trials; 49,866 participants; moderate quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1918/24,908 (7.7%) recipients of vitamin D₃ versus 1933/24,983 (7.7%) in recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 14 trials; 49,891 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA of the vitamin D₃ trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. Vitamin D₃ decreased cancer mortality (558/22,286 (2.5%) versus 634/22,206 (2.8%); RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 4 trials; 44,492 participants; low quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Vitamin D₃ combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 42,753 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA, however, indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. We did not find any data on health-related quality of life or health economics in the randomised trials included in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no firm evidence that vitamin D supplementation decreases or increases cancer occurrence in predominantly elderly community-dwelling women. Vitamin D₃ supplementation decreased cancer mortality and vitamin D supplementation decreased all-cause mortality, but these estimates are at risk of type I errors due to the fact that too few participants were examined, and to risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants. Combined vitamin D₃ and calcium supplements increased nephrolithiasis, whereas it remains unclear from the included trials whether vitamin D₃, calcium, or both were responsible for this effect. We need more trials on vitamin D supplementation, assessing the benefits and harms among younger participants, men, and people with low vitamin D status, and assessing longer duration of treatments as well as higher dosages of vitamin D. Follow-up of all participants is necessary to reduce attrition bias.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Does vitamin D supplementation prevent cancer?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6362
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRadical cystectomy (RC) is the primary surgical treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. This major operation is typically associated with an extended hospital stay, a prolonged recovery period and potentially major complications. Nutritional interventions are beneficial in some people with other types of cancer and may be of value in this setting too.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of perioperative nutrition in people undergoing radical cystectomy for the treatment of bladder cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 22 February 2019, with no restrictions on the language or status of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults undergoing RC for bladder cancer. The intervention was any perioperative nutrition support.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the quality of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications at 90 days and length of hospital stay. The secondary outcome was mortality up to 90 days after surgery. When 90-day outcome data were not available, we reported 30-day data.\nMain results\nThe search identified eight trials including 500 participants. Six trials were conducted in the USA and two in Europe.\n1. Parenteral nutrition (PN) versus oral nutrition: based on one study with 157 participants, PN may increase postoperative complications within 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.82; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence for serious study limitations (unclear risk of selection, performance and selective reporting bias) and serious imprecision. This corresponds to 198 more complications per 1000 participants (95% CI 35 more to 405 more). Length of hospital stay may be similar (mean difference (MD) 0.5 days higher, CI not reported; low-quality evidence).\n2. Immuno-enhancing nutrition versus standard nutrition: based on one study including 29 participants, immuno-enhancing nutrition may reduce 90-day postoperative complications (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.23; low-quality evidence). These findings correspond to 322 fewer complications per 1000 participants (95% CI 429 fewer to 107 more). Length of hospital stay may be similar (MD 0.20 days, 95% CI 1.69 lower to 2.09 higher; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence of both outcomes for very serious imprecision.\n3. Preoperative oral nutritional support versus normal diet: based on one study including 28 participants, we are very uncertain if preoperative oral supplements reduces postoperative complications. We downgraded quality for serious study limitations (unclear risk of selection, performance, attrition and selective reporting bias) and very serious imprecision. The study did not report on length of hospital stay.\n4. Early postoperative feeding versus standard postoperative management: based on one study with 102 participants, early postoperative feeding may increase postoperative complications (very low-quality evidence) but we are very uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of evidence for serious study limitations (unclear risk of selection and performance bias) and very serious imprecision. Length of hospital stay may be similar (MD 0.95 days less, CI not reported; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence for serious study limitations (unclear risk of selection and performance bias) and serious imprecision.\n5. Amino acid with dextrose versus dextrose: based on two studies with 104 participants, we are very uncertain whether amino acids reduce postoperative complications (very low-quality evidence). We are also very uncertain whether length of hospital stay is similar (very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence for both outcomes for serious study limitations (unclear and high risk of selection bias; unclear risk of performance, detection and selective reporting bias), serious indirectness related to the patient population and very serious imprecision.\n6. Branch chain amino acids versus dextrose only: based on one study including 19 participants, we are very uncertain whether complication rates are similar (very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence for serious study limitations (unclear risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition and selective reporting bias), serious indirectness related to the patient population and very serious imprecision. The study did not report on length of hospital stay.\n7. Perioperative oral nutritional supplements versus oral multivitamin and mineral supplement: based on one study with 61 participants, oral supplements compared to a multivitamin and mineral supplement may slightly decrease postoperative complications (low-quality evidence). These findings correspond to 135 fewer occurrences per 1000 participants (95% CI 256 fewer to 65 more). Length of hospital stay may be similar (low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence of both outcomes for study limitations and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on few, small and dated studies, with serious methodological limitations, we found limited evidence for a benefit of perioperative nutrition interventions. We rated the quality of evidence as low or very low, which underscores the urgent need for high-quality research studies to better inform nutritional support interventions for people undergoing surgery for bladder cancer.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"5. Amino acids versus dextrose\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and dextrose is sugary water. From two studies that included 104 people, we are uncertain whether complications may be reduced. Length of hospital stay may be similar."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6363
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn a review and meta-analysis conducted in 1993, psychological preparation was found to be beneficial for a range of outcome variables including pain, behavioural recovery, length of stay and negative affect. Since this review, more detailed bibliographic searching has become possible, additional studies testing psychological preparation for surgery have been completed and hospital procedures have changed. The present review examines whether psychological preparation (procedural information, sensory information, cognitive intervention, relaxation, hypnosis and emotion-focused intervention) has impact on the outcomes of postoperative pain, behavioural recovery, length of stay and negative affect.\nObjectives\nTo review the effects of psychological preparation on postoperative outcomes in adults undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthetic.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1950 to May 2014), EMBASE (OVID SP) (1982 to May 2014), PsycINFO (OVID SP) (1982 to May 2014), CINAHL (EBESCOhost) (1980 to May 2014), Dissertation Abstracts (to May 2014) and Web of Science (1946 to May 2014). We searched reference lists of relevant studies and contacted authors to identify unpublished studies. We reran the searches in July 2015 and placed the 38 studies of interest in the `awaiting classification' section of this review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials of adult participants (aged 16 or older) undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia. We excluded studies focusing on patient groups with clinically diagnosed psychological morbidity. We did not limit the search by language or publication status. We included studies testing a preoperative psychological intervention that included at least one of these seven techniques: procedural information; sensory information; behavioural instruction; cognitive intervention; relaxation techniques; hypnosis; emotion-focused intervention. We included studies that examined any one of our postoperative outcome measures (pain, behavioural recovery, length of stay, negative affect) within one month post-surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nOne author checked titles and abstracts to exclude obviously irrelevant studies. We obtained full reports of apparently relevant studies; two authors fully screened these. Two authors independently extracted data and resolved discrepancies by discussion.\nWhere possible we used random-effects meta-analyses to combine the results from individual studies. For length of stay we pooled mean differences. For pain and negative affect we used a standardized effect size (the standardized mean difference (SMD), or Hedges' g) to combine data from different outcome measures. If data were not available in a form suitable for meta-analysis we performed a narrative review.\nMain results\nSearches identified 5116 unique papers; we retrieved 827 for full screening. In this review, we included 105 studies from 115 papers, in which 10,302 participants were randomized. Mainly as a result of updating the search in July 2015, 38 papers are awaiting classification. Sixty-one of the 105 studies measured the outcome pain, 14 behavioural recovery, 58 length of stay and 49 negative affect. Participants underwent a wide range of surgical procedures, and a range of psychological components were used in interventions, frequently in combination. In the 105 studies, appropriate data were provided for the meta-analysis of 38 studies measuring the outcome postoperative pain (2713 participants), 36 for length of stay (3313 participants) and 31 for negative affect (2496 participants). We narratively reviewed the remaining studies (including the 14 studies with 1441 participants addressing behavioural recovery). When pooling the results for all types of intervention there was low quality evidence that psychological preparation techniques were associated with lower postoperative pain (SMD -0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to -0.06), length of stay (mean difference -0.52 days, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.22) and negative affect (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.16) compared with controls. Results tended to be similar for all categories of intervention, although there was no evidence that behavioural instruction reduced the outcome pain. However, caution must be exercised when interpreting the results because of heterogeneity in the types of surgery, interventions and outcomes. Narratively reviewed evidence for the outcome behavioural recovery provided very low quality evidence that psychological preparation, in particular behavioural instruction, may have potential to improve behavioural recovery outcomes, but no clear conclusions could be reached.\nGenerally, the evidence suffered from poor reporting, meaning that few studies could be classified as having low risk of bias. Overall,we rated the quality of evidence for each outcome as ‘low’ because of the high level of heterogeneity in meta-analysed studies and the unclear risk of bias. In addition, for the outcome behavioural recovery, too few studies used robust measures and reported suitable data for meta-analysis, so we rated the quality of evidence as `very low'.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence suggested that psychological preparation may be beneficial for the outcomes postoperative pain, behavioural recovery, negative affect and length of stay, and is unlikely to be harmful. However, at present, the strength of evidence is insufficient to reach firm conclusions on the role of psychological preparation for surgery. Further analyses are needed to explore the heterogeneity in the data, to identify more specifically when intervention techniques are of benefit. As the current evidence quality is low or very low, there is a need for well-conducted and clearly reported 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": "We included studies of adults who received planned surgery with general anaesthesia. We looked at seven psychological preparation techniques: procedural information (information about what, when and how processes will happen); sensory information (what the experience will feel like and what other sensations they may have, e.g. taste, smell); behavioural instruction (telling patients what they need to do); cognitive intervention (techniques that aim to change how people think); relaxation techniques; hypnosis; and emotion-focused interventions (techniques that aim to help people to manage their feelings). The psychological preparation had to be delivered before surgery for the study to be included in the review. We included studies that looked at the effect of psychological preparation on pain, behavioural recovery, length of stay and negative emotion after surgery (within one month). Studies were included in the review up to the search date of 4 May 2014. We updated the search on 7 July 2015 and will incorporate the 38 studies found in this later search when the review is updated. We included 105 studies from 115 papers, with 10,302 participants taking part. Sixty-one studies measured the outcome pain, 14 behavioural recovery, 58 length of stay and 49 negative emotion. In accordance with the review protocol, we did not record details about funding sources."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6364
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWomen with suspected early-stage ovarian cancer need surgical staging which involves taking samples from areas within the abdominal cavity and retroperitoneal lymph nodes in order to inform further treatment. One potential strategy is to surgically stage all women with suspicious ovarian masses, without any histological information during surgery. This avoids incomplete staging, but puts more women at risk of potential surgical over-treatment.\nA second strategy is to perform a two-stage procedure to remove the pelvic mass and subject it to paraffin sectioning, which involves formal tissue fixing with formalin and paraffin embedding, prior to ultrathin sectioning and multiple site sampling of the tumour. Surgeons may then base further surgical staging on this histology, reducing the rate of over-treatment, but conferring additional surgical and anaesthetic morbidity.\nA third strategy is to perform a rapid histological analysis on the ovarian mass during surgery, known as 'frozen section'. Tissues are snap frozen to allow fine tissue sections to be cut and basic histochemical staining to be performed. Surgeons can perform or avoid the full surgical staging procedure depending on the results. However, this is a relatively crude test compared to paraffin sections, which take many hours to perform. With frozen section there is therefore a risk of misdiagnosing malignancy and understaging women subsequently found to have a presumed early-stage malignancy (false negative), or overstaging women without a malignancy (false positive). Therefore it is important to evaluate the accuracy and usefulness of adding frozen section to the clinical decision-making process.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic test accuracy of frozen section (index test) to diagnose histopathological ovarian cancer in women with suspicious pelvic masses as verified by paraffin section (reference standard).\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015) and relevant Cochrane registers.\nSelection criteria\nStudies that used frozen section for intraoperative diagnosis of ovarian masses suspicious of malignancy, provided there was sufficient data to construct 2 x 2 tables. We excluded articles without an available English translation.\nData collection and analysis\nAuthors independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, flow and timing. Data extraction converted 3 x 3 tables of per patient results presented in articles into 2 x 2 tables, for two index test thresholds.\nMain results\nAll studies were retrospective, and the majority reported consecutive sampling of cases. Sensitivity and specificity results were available from 38 studies involving 11,181 participants (3200 with invasive cancer, 1055 with borderline tumours and 6926 with benign tumours, determined by paraffin section as the reference standard). The median prevalence of malignancy was 29% (interquartile range (IQR) 23% to 36%, range 11% to 63%). We assessed test performance using two thresholds for the frozen section test. Firstly, we used a test threshold for frozen sections, defining positive test results as invasive cancer and negative test results as borderline and benign tumours. The average sensitivity was 90.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 87.6% to 92.0%; with most studies typically reporting range of 71% to 100%), and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 99.2% to 99.7%; range 96% to 100%).\nSimilarly, we analysed sensitivity and specificity using a second threshold for frozen section, where both invasive cancer and borderline tumours were considered test positive and benign cases were classified as negative. Average sensitivity was 96.5% (95% CI 95.5% to 97.3%; typical range 83% to 100%), and average specificity was 89.5% (95% CI 86.6% to 91.9%; typical range 58% to 99%).\nResults were available from the same 38 studies, including the subset of 3953 participants with a frozen section result of either borderline or invasive cancer, based on final diagnosis of malignancy. Studies with small numbers of disease-negative cases (borderline cases) had more variation in estimates of specificity. Average sensitivity was 94.0% (95% CI 92.0% to 95.5%; range 73% to 100%), and average specificity was 95.8% (95% CI 92.4% to 97.8%; typical range 81% to 100%).\nOur additional analyses showed that, if the frozen section showed a benign or invasive cancer, the final diagnosis would remain the same in, on average, 94% and 99% of cases, respectively.\nIn cases where the frozen section diagnosis was a borderline tumour, on average 21% of the final diagnoses would turn out to be invasive cancer.\nIn three studies, the same pathologist interpreted the index and reference standard tests, potentially causing bias. No studies reported blinding pathologists to index test results when reporting paraffin sections.\nIn heterogeneity analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between studies with pathologists of different levels of expertise.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn a hypothetical population of 1000 patients (290 with cancer and 80 with a borderline tumour), if a frozen section positive test result for invasive cancer alone was used to diagnose cancer, on average 261 women would have a correct diagnosis of a cancer, and 706 women would be correctly diagnosed without a cancer. However, 4 women would be incorrectly diagnosed with a cancer (false positive), and 29 with a cancer would be missed (false negative).\nIf a frozen section result of either an invasive cancer or a borderline tumour was used as a positive test to diagnose cancer, on average 280 women would be correctly diagnosed with a cancer and 635 would be correctly diagnosed without. However, 75 women would be incorrectly diagnosed with a cancer and 10 women with a cancer would be missed.\nThe largest discordance is within the reporting of frozen section borderline tumours. Investigation into factors leading to discordance within centres and standardisation of criteria for reporting borderline tumours may help improve accuracy. Some centres may choose to perform surgical staging in women with frozen section diagnosis of a borderline ovarian tumour to reduce the number of false positives. In their interpretation of this review, readers should evaluate results from studies most typical of their population of patients.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the findings?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 38 studies (11,181 women), reporting three types of diagnoses from the frozen section test.\n1. Cancer, which occurred in an average of 29% of women.\n2. Borderline tumour, which occurred in 8% of women.\n3. Benign mass.\nIn a hypothetical group of 1000 patients where 290 have cancer and 80 have a borderline tumour, 261 women would receive a correct diagnosis of a cancer and 706 women would be correctly diagnosed without a cancer based on a frozen section result. However, 4 women would be incorrectly diagnosed as having a cancer where none existed (false positive), and 29 women with cancer would be missed and potentially need further treatment (false negative).\nIf surgeons used a frozen section result of either a cancer or a borderline tumour to diagnose cancer, 280 women would be correctly diagnosed with a cancer and 635 women would be correctly diagnosed without a cancer. However, 75 women would be incorrectly diagnosed as having a cancer, and 10 women with cancer would be missed on the initial test and found to have a cancer after surgery.\nIf the frozen section result reported the mass as benign or malignant, the final diagnosis would remain the same in, on average, 94% and 99% of the cases, respectively.\nIn cases where the frozen section diagnosis was a borderline tumour, there is a chance that the final diagnosis would turn out to be a cancer in, on average, 21% of women."
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.